Oral
Answers to
Questions

Transport

The Secretary of State was asked—

Rail Infrastructure: East of England

Alistair Strathern: What steps he is taking to ensure that new rail infrastructure meets the needs of communities in the east of England.

Huw Merriman: Mr Speaker, may I start by thanking you very much for bringing us all together at the carol concert yesterday, as you always do? I trust that this next hour will also be in keeping with the season of good will.
We are delivering record rail investment in the east of England, including upgrading the midland main line, a new station at Cambridge South, improvements at Ely and Horley junctions to increase passenger and freight capacity, and a new railway connecting eastern towns and cities to Oxford, which will deliver transformational growth across the region.

Alistair Strathern: Wixams new town in my constituency was built in the perfect location for rail connectivity, but over a decade after moving into their homes, residents are still waiting for a start date to be confirmed, let alone for a station to open. Will the Minister work with local stakeholders and Network Rail to get sign-off for that line and ensure that my residents can finally enjoy the rail connectivity that they were promised?

Huw Merriman: I am happy to give that commitment to work with the residents. Indeed, I recently spoke to the Mayor of Bedford on that exact point. We are working at pace to get the station delivered. There are also funding requirements that involve the local region, which have been agreed to previously, and we are keen to make progress.

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend has referred to the Horley junction and Ely junction developments, which came as very welcome news in October. The Horley junction development, in particular, is a very small project. It would be excellent to get a starting date agreed for next year, with the business case  sorted out, recognising how that could improve resilience not only for passengers, but for freight and the port of Felixstowe.

Huw Merriman: My right hon. Friend has been an absolute champion for that project, as have other hon. Friends present. We are keen to make progress. The Secretary of State and I were very keen to see the project brought in, which was possible only because of the Prime Minister’s decisions on Network North in October. We are looking to make rapid progress on it, and I have heard my right hon. Friend’s call and will work to that speed.

Rail Services

Richard Foord: What steps he is taking to improve rail services.

Huw Merriman: The Government are committed to reforming the railways and ensuring that they are customer focused and commercially led, with the creation of Great British Railways to bring together infrastructure, operations and oversight of whole-industry finance. In the interim, the Department continues to hold the rail industry to account to deliver the punctual and reliable services that passengers and taxpayers deserve.

Richard Foord: In November last year, services on the west of England line out of London terminated at Axminster because of a land slip near Honiton. The same line has been closed for nine days this month, and passengers at Feniton are unable to travel to Exeter or London. Will the Minister ease the delays and cancellations for passengers in Honiton by dualling the track from Chard Junction to Axminster and adding a passing loop?

Huw Merriman: With the Prime Minister’s Network North commitment, £36 billion-worth of transport projects will be going ahead in other parts. I am happy to look at the project to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I should also mention that I am aware that there have been problems on the western and Wales routes, particularly those coming out of Paddington. The chief executive of Network Rail is also well aware of those problems and is taking action to ensure that we remedy the situation.

Stephen Crabb: So many families in Pembrokeshire have sons and daughters working away or studying all over the country who will want to get home this Christmas. With such poor rail services into Wales, what assurances has the Minister had from companies such as Great Western Railway that they will stop putting on five-carriage trains when they should be running 10 carriages; that they will have a full roster of drivers available in the days ahead, so that we can have a full complement of services running; and that services will not be cut short in places such as Swansea and Carmarthen, leaving my constituents stranded late at night?

Huw Merriman: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. With Christmas eve and new year’s eve falling on Sundays this year, the team at GWR had to approach the Department because drivers were requesting  additional payments for driving trains on those Sundays, as Sunday is still not part of a working seven-day week on the railway. We have delivered on that commitment, but the fundamental reform point remains: we need ASLEF and other trade unions to ensure that we have a modern railway that works seven days a week. I can give him an assurance that everything is being done, but a lot more could be done if we could reform with the unions’ co-operation.

Dan Jarvis: What role does the Northern Transport Acceleration Council have in Network North?

Huw Merriman: Being straight, transparent and open, I will write to the hon. Member and give him that detail, rather than attempt to make it up at Christmas time.

Martin Vickers: Until fairly recently, Northern Trains provided a Saturdays-only service between Sheffield and Cleethorpes via Brigg. That has now changed to one train a day, five days a week, allowing people only an hour and a half to enjoy the shopping in Grimsby or the excellent resort of Cleethorpes. Could my hon. Friend look into this matter and contact me after speaking with Northern Trains?

Huw Merriman: Yes, I will do so. We have discussed that service before and are looking at a timetable alteration for the future. I will ensure that is looked at with my hon. Friend’s point very much in mind.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Gavin Newlands: The Transport Committee, with which the Minister is fairly familiar, heard evidence last week that, thanks to the cancellation of HS2 phase 2 to Manchester and the inability of high-speed rolling stock to tilt on the remaining west coast main line track, journey times  to and from Glasgow could actually increase by up to 24 minutes, even with the £50 billion Birmingham  to London branch line complete. Does the Minister think that passengers in Scotland will see that as yet another Union connectivity dividend?

Huw Merriman: No, I do not agree. In fact, when that matter came up at the Public Accounts Committee, the official who works on HS2 was able to explain that, where trains tilt, they can do so at certain speeds on the west coast main line. However, that does not actually require a tilting train: any train can go at that speed, provided the speed is on the train. HS2 trains will also have faster acceleration, so I dispute the hon. Member’s point.

Lindsay Hoyle: Some trains on the west coast main line would be more helpful, I think.

Road Resurfacing

Marco Longhi: What funding his Department is providing for road resurfacing.

Eddie Hughes: What funding his Department is providing for road resurfacing.

Mark Harper: Mr Speaker, before responding, given that these are the last Transport questions of the year, may I put on record my gratitude to the staff of the House, and also to those across the transport sector who will be working tirelessly across the Christmas period to ensure that families can get together and goods can keep moving?
As part of the Prime Minister’s Network North plan, the Government are providing a record funding increase of £8.3 billion for local highways maintenance over the next decade, which will enable local highway authorities to resurface roads up and down the country.

Marco Longhi: Potholes are a scourge everywhere, so I am not only very grateful for the additional Government funding, but very impressed by the responsiveness and the quality of work by Dudley Council’s highways department. Will the Secretary of State agree to visit Dudley, and would he support tighter contracting frameworks by local authorities so that utility companies and others are made to pay for all the consequences of their substandard work?

Mark Harper: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, including for telling us about the good work that his local authority is doing to improve the quality of local roads. Utility companies already have legal duties to ensure that their works and reinstatements are to required standards. Earlier this year, we introduced a new performance-based street works regime to crack down on the worst performing companies leaving behind poor road surface repairs that can lead to more potholes. Those with higher failure rates are now inspected more often and are charged for it, so companies are incentivised to carry out good-quality reinstatements first time and to repair existing defects.

Eddie Hughes: As a civil engineer, I am always excited to hear about more money being spent on the highways, but is the Secretary of State aware of the Pothole Pro? This is a machine, developed by Staffordshire-based JCB, that can allegedly repair a pothole in as little as eight minutes. Should that sort of technology be rolled out across the country so that we do not just spend more money, but spend it more effectively?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of tools to deliver increased productivity so that we get more for what we spend. I was lucky enough to visit JCB myself and see the Pothole Pro in action, as well as the innovative work it is doing, as a fantastic world leader in innovation, on some of its hydrogen engines for its mobile off-road machinery. I am sure that local councils will look carefully at the Pothole Pro and other technologies that can help us make the best use of that record investment in road improvements.

Barry Sheerman: The Secretary of State will know that we all want good roads, but we also want safe roads. Can I draw his attention to the dreadful road accidents killing young people recently? Is he aware that over the last 13 years, from being one of the safest places in the world in terms  of road safety and deaths on the roads, we are steadily becoming very bad indeed? Will he do something about that, if he can?

Mark Harper: I of course share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the deaths of anyone on the roads, but particularly of young people. I do not recognise the characterisation he has set out. Our road safety record remains one of the best in the world. [Interruption.] Well, it does. The Department spends a great deal of resource on campaigns to get people to drive more safely, and we do that when we are engineering and delivering new roads. Safety is one of the very important things that we think about as we design and roll out new road infrastructure.

Furness Line Electrification

Simon Fell: What assessment he has made of the potential merits of electrifying the Furness line.

Huw Merriman: Northern is developing a final business case for a new fleet that will bring new trains to my hon. Friend’s route, and include options for greener technology such as batteries. We are also working with the Great British Railways transition team to assess options to decarbonise the whole network.

Simon Fell: I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be delighted to know that, for once, I am going to ask not about the quality of service on the Furness line, but rather about capacity. The Government recently announced, through the Network North deal, the electrification of the energy coast line. That will take 150 million tonnes of freight off that line every year and is hugely welcome. Through the SSN-AUKUS programme and the Dreadnought programme, and the doubling of the size of the shipyard in Barrow, a similar amount of freight will be needed going the other way. Will the Minister meet me and the wider Team Barrow board to discuss the merits of electrifying the Furness line?

Huw Merriman: As my hon. Friend knows, my officials are active members of Team Barrow, alongside the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and local partners, recognising the national significance of the submarine programme. Work is ongoing, looking at improvements to the A590, and at options for the rail industry to improve the local rail network. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that work.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel

Jim Shannon: When he plans to publish further information on the UK sustainable aviation fuel mandate.

Anthony Browne: After four years in Parliament, this is my maiden voyage at the Dispatch Box. [Interruption.] Indeed, it is Christmas come early, and it is a gift that the first question I am asked comes from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
The UK sustainable aviation fuel mandate is on track to start on 1 January 2025, with preparatory work  on secondary legislation progressing well. We recognise   that final decisions on the parameters of the mandate must be taken in a timely way to provide certainty for investment decisions, and we will publish those as soon as possible.

Jim Shannon: I welcome the Minister to his place and wish him well in his endeavours. It is always a pleasure to see some of the 2019 intake elevated to the Front Bench, so very well done. I thank him for his answer, as the issue of sustainable aviation fuel is important for my constituents. To ensure that we do not overshoot climate targets on the road to jet zero or net zero, will the Government consider introducing the SAF mandate under a greenhouse gas intensity scheme? That is quite a technical question, but I know it is one that the Minister is well up to answering.

Anthony Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I more normally get asked concerns about whether we are going to undershoot the target, rather than overshoot it, but it is a valid question. It is important for us that we are introducing the SAF mandate, and we must give certainty to the industry so that investment comes in. We have funded 13 different companies to set up SAF plants or do development, but we are looking at all the different options and nothing is off the table. We will consider all the different proposals and publish our response to the second consultation as soon as possible.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Gavin Newlands: The Government’s plans to have five sustainable aviation fuel plants under construction by 2025 look doomed. We are falling behind competitors who have a head start on SAF infrastructure, and with hydrogen likely to be the dominant fuel source for aviation beyond SAFs, we also need hydrogen infrastructure. Grangemouth currently supplies Scottish airports with fuel, and has the right feedstocks and infrastructure to turn waste and renewable electricity into jet fuel. What are the Government doing to save Grangemouth as part of a just transition to net zero, and when will we see plans for a contract for difference-type scheme for SAFs?

Anthony Browne: As I outlined in my previous answer, with SAFs we are generating a whole new industry. It is happening across the world. I spoke at the International Civil Aviation Organisation conference in Dubai, and to aviation Ministers from around the world, and all are trying to promote this industry. We are probably more advanced here than anywhere else in the country, and as I mentioned, we are funding 13 different schemes to get the industry going. I will meet SAF producers in the next couple of days, and we want information from them about what is needed. What is needed is certainty, and there are benefits from across the country in both Scotland and England. There are huge economic benefits from this, and it could create many thousands of jobs.

Motor Traffic

Greg Knight: What steps he plans to take to improve traffic flows in towns and cities.

Greg Smith: What steps he is taking to support motorists.

Mark Harper: This Government recognise that most journeys in this country are made by car, and that is why we are providing comprehensive support for motorists through our plan for drivers, which includes a package of measures to improve traffic flow, and also through the £8.3 billion investment in road resurfacing. That historic investment in road condition will benefit all road users, as we have set out in earlier answers.

Greg Knight: Despite the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister saying that the war against the motorist is over, is he aware that many Labour local authorities have not got the message, with unwanted low-traffic neighbourhoods in place, unjustified 20 mph speed limits being proposed and traffic lights phased deliberately to delay traffic flows, causing added pollution? Will he consider giving advice to local authorities that they should do all they can to improve traffic flows and not disrupt them because of some misguided dogma against the motorist?

Mark Harper: My right hon. Friend is right: we are pro-driver, but also pro- public transport and pro-active travel, and those things are about giving people better choices and making sure that councils do not deliver anti-driver traffic management measures. The network management duty requires local authorities to manage their roads as efficiently as possible for the benefit of all road users, including drivers, which some of them forget from time to time. We have also announced new funding totalling £40 million specifically for improvements to traffic lights to keep local roads moving, including deploying machine learning and artificial intelligence to optimise traffic flow to get cars moving.

Greg Smith: The plan for drivers clearly shows that this Government are on the side of Britain’s motorists, but there is one missing link, which is rural roads. When a rural road is closed by a utility company or others, the diversion is not just a quick five minutes, but often half an hour or 40 minutes. Buckinghamshire Council tells me that the current fines system is just too low and the utility companies shrug it off. Can my right hon. Friend take real action to ensure that councils can properly fine utility companies when they disrupt rural communities?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend makes a good point that I am well aware of, representing a rural constituency myself. Some of the benefits of investment in infrastructure such as broadband do bring with them traffic disruption. One of the things we have put in place, as I mentioned in an earlier answer, is the change to make sure that good utility companies will have much less inspection and much less cost involved in delivery. Those utility companies that leave behind a mess, and therefore cause that disruption over and over again, will face more inspections and more costs, incentivising them to do a better job for his and my constituents.

Daniel Zeichner: I welcome my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) to his place on the Front Bench. For the past two years, part of the guided  busway in Cambridge has been closed due to a complex legal wrangle with the Health and Safety Executive. It has meant that buses are snarled up and motorists and bus users have had thousands and thousands of hours of wasted time. Will the Minister meet me to try to find a way to resolve this issue speedily and get Cambridge moving?

Mark Harper: I am not familiar with the specific situation that the hon. Gentleman raises about a dispute with the Health and Safety Executive. I will of course make sure that the relevant Minister meets him to deal with this issue. I have to say that my previous experience of Cambridge City Council was that it was tending to implement policies such as its congestion charging scheme, which it has now had to drop because it was so unpopular. It was not focused on getting traffic moving, but being against the interests of road users. I am glad that he welcomes that change.

Fabian Hamilton: Leeds is one of the most congested cities in the country, mainly because it is the largest city in Europe without a rail-based public transport system. Why do the Government have such contempt for the citizens of Leeds? When will we see a decent public transport system in our city?

Mark Harper: That is an extraordinary question, given that the Government have, in the Network North announcement that the Prime Minister made, put aside £2.5 billion for a mass transit system in Leeds so that Leeds no longer remains one of the largest cities in Europe without one. I have to say that that investment in Leeds to benefit his constituents is possible only because of the choice that this Government made to cancel the second phase of HS2 and to spend the money on that mass transit system in Leeds. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not welcome that significant investment for his constituents.

High Speed 2

Andrew Gwynne: What estimate he has made of the net cost to the public purse of land purchased and planned for sale in connection with HS2 phase 2.

Sarah Edwards: What estimate he has made of the net cost to the public purse of land purchased and planned for sale in connection with HS2 phase 2.

Huw Merriman: As of October 2023, a total of £573 million had been spent acquiring land and property assets on phase 2. That includes all property asset types, such as plots of land, farmland, farms, commercial property and domestic property. Any land and property asset that is no longer required will be sold, and a programme is being developed to do that.

Andrew Gwynne: Data from the High-Speed Rail Group suggests that the Government’s fire sale of land on the former Birmingham to Manchester stretch of HS2 will cost taxpayers a staggering £100 million. But they are not content with wasting taxpayers’ money and denying us the high-speed rail in the north that we  deserve; Denton and Reddish is not even set to benefit from local rail improvements. That would not be hard—I have one train a week serving Denton and Reddish South stations. Why?

Huw Merriman: I am glad the hon. Gentleman mentioned that report, because it is completely wrong. For a start, it states that £205 million has been spent on land and property, which is wrong—it is a different figure.

Louise Haigh: What is it, then?

Huw Merriman: I just stated exactly what it is, if the hon. Lady had listened to my answer. We have published exactly how much has been spent: on phase 2a it was £273 million, and on phase 2b it was £201 million. Property and land will be sold only when it is right to do so, ensuring good value for the taxpayer and the communities where the property is sold.

Sarah Edwards: It is my understanding that HS2 trains are designed for new tracks rather than the current Victorian-era infrastructure. Surely, that incompatibility will result in HS2 trains running slower and in fewer trains per hour for my constituents. Can the Minister explain how decreased capacity across the network, slower trains and reduced services will be better for my constituents?

Huw Merriman: Again, that is not the case at all. HS2 trains will be built to run across the network that they will travel on. I made the point previously that on the parts of the west coast main line where tilting trains go faster, HS2 trains will also be able to go at that faster speed. As a result, the journey time to Manchester will come down from two hours and 12 minutes to one hour and 40 minutes, leading to a faster service for all,  Mr Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: Marvellous.

Jack Brereton: As the Minister will know, I very much welcome the decision on phase 2 of HS2. However, there is still an impact on many land and property owners in Staffordshire. We heard in the Transport Committee that it could take up to two years to get land back to those owners. Will my hon. Friend look into this urgently to ensure that those property owners—particularly farmers, who need to know when they can sow their crops—get that land back as soon as possible?

Huw Merriman: In the words of Take That, I ask my hon. Friend for a little patience. It will take time to develop a programme to ensure that we deliver value for money for the taxpayer and do not disrupt local property markets. We will engage with the affected communities throughout the process. Where land can be rented back out and therefore put to use—farming is a good example —that is happening right now, and we will ensure that that happens even more so now that we have certainty about HS2.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Simon Lightwood: Between July and September, Ministers admitted that tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money had been spent on HS2 land, at the same time that the Prime Minister was planning to cancel the project. Now, Ministers plan to flog that same land at a huge loss. Even the party  that crashed the economy is still able to find unique ways to fleece the taxpayer. Will the Minister explain what safeguards he will put in place to protect the land and taxpayers’ money from this ill-judged and costly fire sale?

Huw Merriman: Despite what I said about this being the season of good will, quite frankly that is complete and utter nonsense. As I have stated, there will be a very careful analysis of the property that will be released. The Crichel Down rules require tests to be met, and only once they are will we return the property to the original owner at its market value. This will be done properly. We have delivered certainty: we have said that the route will not go ahead. What I am sure everyone along the line of the route would like to know is whether HS2 would go ahead under the Labour Transport team, or whether it would not, because of the Labour Treasury team. Give them some certainty.

UK Emissions Trading Scheme: Ferry Services

Alistair Carmichael: If he will make an assessment with Cabinet colleagues of the potential impact of the UK emissions trading scheme on domestic ferry services.

Anthony Browne: The UK ETS Authority will publish a second consultation on the implementation of the UK ETS in 2024. We welcome any evidence in response to the consultation. We will publish a full analysis of the policy’s impact in the Government’s response to the consultation. The Department has not yet conducted a full assessment of the implications for domestic ferries.

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. He may be aware that there are many in the shipping industry who are concerned that including lifeline ferry services, such as those that serve my constituency, in the emissions trading scheme could hinder rather than help the process of decarbonisation. The EU has already recognised that by giving its lifeline ferry services a derogation until 2030. Will the shipping Minister—I know it is not this Minister’s responsibility—engage with operators in Scotland and elsewhere to ensure that we are not hit by the law of unintended consequences?

Anthony Browne: I very much welcome that question. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is a doughty champion for ferries in those islands and I know how important ferry services are for residents there. We have been very careful, across our transport decarbonisation plan, not to damage industries or sectors. We have given many billions of pounds in support for the whole range of different transport sectors and domestic ferries are very much a part of that. I am very happy to engage with the sector and to meet him to ensure that the ferries can carry on transporting passengers throughout Orkney, Shetland and elsewhere in the British Isles.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Mike Kane: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I smile because I am welcoming the Minister to his place perhaps half a dozen Ministers since I first stood at the Dispatch Box—but the best of luck to him in the time ahead. [Laughter.]
Decarbonising maritime will require unprecedented investment in UK technologies, with visionary policy and regulatory frameworks that limit ships’ emissions and mandate the use of clean fuels. When will the Government follow the advice issued by the Transport Committee in June and streamline the muddle of 184 recommendations it set for itself in “Maritime 2050”? Speaking of which, we were promised a refreshed “Maritime 2050” in 2023 by one of the Secretary of State’s many predecessors. There are a handful of days left. Where is it?

Anthony Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what I am going to call his warm words—it is Christmas, a time to forgive and forget. The clean maritime plan is being refreshed and we will publish it as soon as possible. We are taking in and analysing a very wide range of evidence from a wide range of different people. The Government are committed to the whole “Maritime 2050” plan, and we are investing over £200 million in the UK SHORE programme to help fund research and development to make shipping decarbonise.

Transport Connectivity: North of England

Ian Levy: What steps he is taking to increase transport connectivity between cities in the north of England.

Guy Opperman: Aside from the £1 billion investment in Network North, my hon. Friend will be aware that the single biggest connectivity project in his community is the Northumberland line, a groundbreaking railway line that will connect Blyth and the surrounding cities to Newcastle.

Ian Levy: I am delighted consultation has now taken place regarding a relief road for Blyth, which is badly needed. As a result of the proposed plans, which could see the closure of an existing road and the rerouting of residents along a new road, many residents of Cramlington could see their journey times increase. Keeping the existing road open would address that, as well as save money. Will my hon. Friend agree to look at that again and see whether it could be achieved?

Guy Opperman: I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and Northumberland County Council, post the consultation.

Clive Betts: Ten years ago, David Higgins, the then chair of HS2, said that connectivity between Sheffield and Manchester was worse than between any other major cities in Europe. Since then, Sheffield’s connection with Manchester airport has been scrapped. We had a review of a tunnel under the Pennines. That tunnel got shorter and shorter until it finally disappeared altogether. Can the Minister  say in what way—if any, because I do not think there  have been any—transport links between Sheffield and Manchester have improved while this Government have been in power?

Guy Opperman: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a substantial amount of electrification is taking place. He will also be aware of the city regional sustainable settlement, which will provide significant investment in the north.

Rail Manufacturing: Alstom

Margaret Beckett: What steps he has taken to support rail manufacturing at Alstom in Derby.

Lindsay Hoyle: Margaret Beckett is not here. Will the Secretary of State answer the question as though she were, so that I can call the shadow Minister?

Mark Harper: My officials and I have held regular meetings with senior management at Alstom. We have also convened, under my direction, a cross-Whitehall group to advise on ways to support continued production at Derby, and on how best to support the workers who could lose their jobs. This must be a commercial decision for Alstom, but the Government have been working with the company to explore every option to enable it to continue manufacturing at its Derby site, and local Members in Derby—including the fantastic colleague sitting beside me, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway)—have been raising these issues with me regularly, effectively representing their constituents.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Stephen Morgan: Three years ago, the Government hailed the deal to manufacture HS2 trains in Britain as putting the country
“firmly at the forefront of the high speed rail revolution”.
Today, the jobs of the skilled people who work in that industry and build those trains in Derby and Newton Aycliffe  are at risk. There are just days left to find a solution. Will the Secretary of State, specifically, meet Hitachi and Alstom as a matter of urgency? Does he accept that if Ministers fail to act in the coming days, the final legacy of this shambolic Government will be thousands of skilled jobs lost and HS2 trains built abroad?

Mark Harper: I am slightly surprised by the hon. Gentleman. He wrote to my hon. Friend the Rail Minister on 17 November, asking a series of, I am afraid, quite ill-informed questions. I sent him a comprehensive reply on 24 November, which I note he has not chosen to publicise. He tries to pretend that our decision on HS2 has something to do with this. I made it quite clear that Alstom’s contract with Hitachi—their joint venture to design, build and maintain HS2 trains—is for phase 1 only. Phase 1 of HS2 is continuing. That position was reiterated by Alstom group’s chief executive in his commentary on its recent results. I have met both Alstom and Hitachi regularly since the decision on Network North. I am afraid that Alstom’s problems predate our decision on HS2, and the hon. Gentleman’s attempt to play party politics on this incredibly serious matter, on which the Government are working very hard on a cross-party basis with the companies and the trade unions, is beneath him.

Transport Workforce: Migration

Steven Bonnar: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of Government proposals to reduce net migration on the transport sector workforce.

Mark Harper: I regularly engage with Cabinet colleagues on Government policy, including migration, and my Department works closely with organisations across the transport industry to understand the sector’s concerns about the transport labour market.

Steven Bonnar: The driver shortage in the UK is far from over and, according to sector insiders, a “tipping point” is looming. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that there were 6,000 fewer delivery and courier drivers in the UK in 2023 than in the previous year, and more than half the UK’s HGV drivers are due to retire in the next decade. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that this ticking time bomb does not blow up in our face as happened during the period following Brexit? Surely migration is part of the solution.

Mark Harper: It is disappointing that the SNP’s first response to any tightness in the labour market is to want to import people from abroad. My colleague the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, along with the fantastic officials in that Department and our jobcentre network, is ensuring that we provide skills training for those who are already in the United Kingdom so that we can deal with the skills shortages, as we did so effectively in the case of HGV drivers when, during and following the pandemic, we worked rapidly to get more of them into the industry.

Airport Security Scanners

Iain Stewart: What recent discussions he has had with airport operators on the introduction of new security scanners by June 2024.

Anthony Browne: The Secretary of State has visited many airports to discuss the upgrading of airport security, and has seen the new security equipment in operation. I know that my predecessor engaged regularly with airport representatives to seek reassurances on timescales for the next generation security checkpoint. Most recently, I met Heathrow’s chief executive for discussions. I can reassure the House that I will continue this good work, and will shortly meet representatives of the aviation sector to discuss the matter further. There are many visits already in the diary; indeed, I will be meeting the Airport Operators Association straight after this session. My Department—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think we have got the gist.

Iain Stewart: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, and I welcome him to his new role.
This new technology will greatly improve passenger experience at airport security. For example, it will obviate the need for those little plastic bags we all love putting   our liquids into. Airports are worried about potential delays if the passenger scanners are introduced in one go for every passenger, as people will need to get used to the new technology. May I urge the Minister to discuss with the airport operators the phased introduction of the new scanners, to remove the possibility of delays?

Anthony Browne: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his question, which he asked when I gave evidence to the Committee yesterday. I said he would have to wait until today for my answer.
This new technology will bring huge benefits for passengers, as my hon. Friend said—I think we will all be delighted to see the end of putting our little bottles into those little plastic bags—and it will improve safety. The screening of passengers with these security scanners is already being phased in. The Government have long been clear with airports about the requirement for next-generation security checkpoints, and the deadline for implementation has already been delayed several times, partly because of covid and other factors. Airports were consulted on the June 2024 deadline, and many have successfully trialled the scanners. They are already phasing them in, and June 2024 is the end deadline. My message to the airports is that they should start implementing them now; they should not wait for the deadline. I will discuss it with the Airport Operators Association in our meeting immediately after questions.

Transport Decarbonisation

Marion Fellows: What steps his Department plans to take following COP28 to support transport decarbonisation.

Anthony Browne: Our transport decarbonisation plan is probably the most advanced of any country in the world, and we continue to implement it. Just yesterday, King Charles approved the zero-emission vehicle mandate, which requires 80% of new vehicles to have zero emissions by 2030. Petrol and diesel cars, vans and trucks weighing up to 26 tonnes will be banned by 2035. We have introduced the sustainable aviation fuel mandate, under which 10% of aviation fuel should be sustainable by 2030. Similarly, we are pushing ahead in all the different sectors.

Marion Fellows: I welcome the Minister to his place. This financial year, active travel spending is £1.91 per head in England and £30.10 per head in Scotland—a 1,400% difference between Scottish and UK Government priorities. Decarbonisation needs transformational investment in active travel, which particularly supports accessibility, and it simply is not happening for folk in England. Will he undertake to begin the long process of finally getting England on the road to matching Scotland’s ambition?

Anthony Browne: I thank the hon. Member for that question. We are actually spending more money on active travel than any other Government in history. As she says, active travel is an important part of decarbonisation and the route to net zero. Her figures do not take into account the regional spending within  England, which should be added to the total. I would be happy to write to her with the actual figures for spending in the UK.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Bill Esterson: The Secretary of State told the Transport Committee that electric cars are cheaper to run than their petrol and diesel counterparts. He also knows that sales of new electric cars fell by 17% last month.
The Minister has just mentioned the ZEV mandate, and I remind him that it was passed only because Labour MPs voted for it. He also knows that it addresses manufacturers, not consumers—supply, not demand. How do the Government plan to reassure drivers that buying electric means cheaper motoring? How will he undo the damage that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders says was done to consumer confidence by his Prime Minister’s comments on the end of the sale of new petrol and diesel cars?

Anthony Browne: My key focus in my decarbonisation of transport role is to ensure a smooth and successful roll-out of electric vehicles. The hon. Member quoted one month’s figures, but overall sales of electric vehicles are up 41% this year compared with last year. Indeed, a greater share of electric vehicles is being sold in the UK than in any of the five major countries in the EU—more than in Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Poland. It really is a record to be proud of. He is right that this is about supply and demand. We have stipulated in the ZEV mandate that 80% of sales should be zero/electric by 2030, but we also need to ensure that there are enough charge points for them. We have spent nearly £2 billion supporting electric vehicles, and we have a whole range of different schemes to deliver that.

Motoring Costs

Navendu Mishra: What assessment he has made of the impact of trends in the level of motoring costs on drivers.

Guy Opperman: Nationally, we have substantially reduced fuel duty. Locally, I hope that the hon. Member will welcome the £33 million investment with his local council into the A34, which will help his local residents.

Navendu Mishra: Labour has revealed that the Government’s delay to the phase-out date for the sale of petrol and diesel cars to 2035 is set to cost drivers £13 billion in higher fuel costs. On top of that, petrol prices have already soared and car insurance costs have gone up by an eye-watering 50% in just a year. Where is the Government’s plan to tackle the rip-off prices facing drivers?

Guy Opperman: I suggest that the hon. Member reads at speed the plan for drivers, and goes back into history and remembers Gordon Brown’s fuel duty escalator. Perhaps his constituents do not remember the 6% increase that was introduced by the Labour Government, but my constituents definitely do.

Topical Questions

Stephen Hammond: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Mark Harper: As I said earlier, these are the last Transport oral questions before Christmas, and we are backing drivers with an easier Christmas getaway. From next Tuesday, National Highways is lifting over 1,000 miles of roadworks, which means that over 98% of motorways and major A roads will be roadwork-free until 2 January. We are also getting on with the job of resurfacing Britain’s roads, thanks to the record £8.3 billion uplift in funding. Earlier this month, highway authorities received the first tranche of that investment, which will mean smoother, safer journeys and save drivers hundreds of pounds in costly vehicle repairs. Local authorities also have new reporting requirements, so taxpayers will know how that money is being spent.
The Prime Minister made the right long-term decision to redirect money from HS2 towards the local journeys that matter most, ensuring that more people in more places will see benefits more quickly. That is what the British people want, it is what the country needs, and it is what we are delivering.

Stephen Hammond: Will my right hon. Friend say when the strategic objectives behind Network North will be announced and published? Can he confirm that any projects announced so far are consistent with those objectives, and whether any of the HS2 funding will come to London and the south-east?

Mark Harper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. As I set out, the objective of the decision is to ensure that that £36 billion of transport spending, which we are reinvesting in transport projects, will benefit more people, in more places across the country, more quickly. We are investing £6.5 billion pounds of savings from HS2 outside the north and midlands, which will benefit his constituents as well. That includes additional funding for London—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Come on boys, you’re going to have to help me. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Louise Haigh: May I wish you, Mr Speaker, and the whole House a very merry Christmas? Why have the Government wasted £95 million on technology to retrofit buses that does not work?

Mark Harper: The hon. Lady will know that we have done a great deal of work to make sure that buses are compliant with the emissions rules. There are some technical issues being worked through at the moment, but I am not in a position to announce any decisions yet. We will announce to the House in due course when that work is completed.

Louise Haigh: Bus services are disappearing at record levels, yet the Secretary of State’s Department has wasted almost £100 million on retrofitting technology that does not work, because it was never tested outside a lab. Even for this Government, this is a shocking display of  incompetence and waste. Will he now work with those cities left with useless technology and ensure that the next round of zero-emissions funding is targeted there, so that they can get on with the job of cleaning up our air and cleaning up his mess?

Mark Harper: Once again, the hon. Lady simply does not recognise the significant investment that we have made in bus services. We have announced a significant amount of extra money for protecting bus routes, we have rolled out funding to deliver the £2 bus fare cap, and we have announced the money to deliver zero-emission buses and delivered the full 1,000 we said we would deliver. There has been a huge amount of investment in bus services, because we know it is the most popular form of public transport and we will always back it.

Rob Butler: My right hon. Friend’s Department has ensured that many bus passengers can benefit from the £2 cap on fares, but sadly Red Rose buses in my constituency is not offering it because the company says it is not compulsory. Will my right hon. Friend help me persuade all bus companies to do the right thing for Aylesbury’s residents, including by meeting bosses of the companies that refuse?

Guy Opperman: I am disappointed to hear that news from Aylesbury. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and to invite the bus company in to explain why it is not taking up the Government’s generous offer.

Wendy Chamberlain: Earlier this year, the UK Government pledged to fund a bridge repair in the constituency of the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross). The Newburgh train station campaign is working to re-establish a train station that will provide a vital transport link. Assuming that strategic funding is not just available to Members of the Conservative party, who can I speak to in order to get that station re-established?

Mark Harper: On her first point, we are working with the local authority to progress that scheme, which was announced earlier. On her specific point, I will arrange for the relevant Minister to meet her so that she can put forward the case for that scheme, and we will look at whether it is possible to do anything to help her.

John Penrose: I know the Minister understands that open-access rail can provide better, cheaper, more varied and more resilient services for passengers. In the next few weeks or months, how much rail network capacity does he expect to make available for open-access services from currently unused track slots, potentially from unused slots freed up by timetable improvements and from services currently provided by the operator of last resort?

Huw Merriman: I thank my hon. Friend for joining me and others in the industry to discuss open-access rail on 27 October. I have today written to the Office of Rail and Road and the chief executive of Network Rail, asking them to review the unused access rights and agree a timeline, so that we can get decisions made more promptly. I hope to then give him more information.

Diana R. Johnson: The Prime Minister announced the electrification of the rail line to Hull in October at the Conservative party conference, so will the Minister tell me what the start date for that work will be?

Huw Merriman: As part of the engagement exercise, which the Prime Minister promised, I have met leaders from across the north. Last week, it was a pleasure to meet those from the region around Hull to discuss their preferred route. They made the point that the route should be prioritised because electrification has been talked about before, and I think that is a very good idea.

Peter Aldous: I emphasise to the Government the point made by my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), about pressing ahead with the Ely junction and Haughley junction schemes. Network Rail has done much of the preparatory work and is poised to get on with it as quickly as possible.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that scheme again. I know it is an important issue for colleagues in the east of England and I am delighted that we are able to make progress as a result of the decision on Network North. I have discussed it with Network Rail and the next steps involve the development of the full business case. Network Rail has what it needs to make progress, and I know my hon. Friend will be wishing it every speed.

Ruth Cadbury: Over the past year, yet more people have been killed or seriously injured on our roads, and the UK’s record on that has plateaued. While we have accident investigation organisations for air, maritime and rail, we do not have one for roads. The Government promised to set up a road safety investigation branch last year. When will that become a reality?

Mark Harper: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the important issue of road safety. I notice that the statistics she set out are inconsistent with those set out by her hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). She recognises that our road safety record is not going backwards, as he suggested. When there is a fatality, road accidents are investigated by the relevant authorities, and that remains the position. We learn lessons from accidents, so that when we build new road infrastructure it has safety at its heart.

Lia Nici: Will my hon. Friend update the House on the progress of the potential return of the direct rail link from King’s Cross to Grimsby and Cleethorpes?

Huw Merriman: My hon. Friend follows my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) in raising that matter at Transport questions. They are without doubt the strongest lobbyists when it comes to train timetabling changes. She will have seen the test train that ran in June. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the last Transport questions that we hope to make an announcement shortly. It is something that we are working on.

Liz Twist: Of the 4,000 zero-emission buses promised in the national bus strategy, only 660 have been funded outside London and half of those have gone to overseas manufacturers. What are the Government doing to help UK manufacturers develop competitive zero-emission buses capable of longer distance journeys?

Guy Opperman: I was delighted to meet and engage with many of the different manufacturers from the UK only two weeks ago. I look forward to discussing the matter with them in more detail.

Elliot Colburn: What conversations is the Minister having with Southern and Thameslink about increasing rail capacity and running longer services from Carshalton and Wallington, addressing the dangerous gap at Hackbridge station, and installing step-free access at Carshalton Beeches station?

Huw Merriman: I have met my hon. Friend and I appreciate the work that he does campaigning for the stations in his constituency. I have regular conversations with people from Govia Thameslink Railway, and I know that they have recently increased capacity on some busy services through Carshalton and Hackbridge. On Hackbridge station, I offer to meet him with a team from Network Rail to see whether we can address the matter that he mentions.

Tan Dhesi: Such was the excitement in Wales in 2012 when Conservative Ministers announced that they would be building the four-mile western rail link to Heathrow to open in 2020 that First Minister Rhodri Morgan described it as one of the “most important announcements” in the last 50 years, but it was yet another broken promise. After more than a decade, when does the Transport Secretary expect the first spade to be dug into the ground to build the No.1 infrastructure priority of the Thames Valley region?

Huw Merriman: When this proposal was first mooted, it was to be a 50:50 split with Heathrow airport and the new runway, but matters changed after the pandemic. We are determined to see private sector involvement in the railways continue. If there is a private sector proposal, we are very happy to support it, but these schemes must not come at the expense of taxpayers.

Nickie Aiken: The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) saw for himself on Sunday night the scourge of pedicabs in the west end. With the Pedicabs (London) Bill having reached Report stage in the Lords, can he update the House on when we can expect it to be presented in this place?

Guy Opperman: Early in the new year.

Grahame Morris: One train per hour stops on the Durham coastline, usually with two carriages. This severely limits access to economic opportunities in Sunderland, Newcastle and Middlesbrough. Recently, Northern Rail confirmed a new two-hourly service, but my constituents will only be able to wave at it as it goes by, because the plan is that it will not stop at the stations  at Seaham and Horden. Can the Rail Minister please use his influence with Northern to see whether he can get those trains to stop?

Huw Merriman: I am sure that everyone waves at the hon. Gentleman, great man that he is. It was great to meet him when he came to the Department. We talked about Durham coastal service and timetable changes. Today, Transport for the North is discussing timetable changes, so I hope that that proposal goes through and that I can therefore give Durham coastal service the improvement that he asks for.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: May I encourage my right hon. Friend to cut the money given to the West of England Combined Authority, as it spends it extraordinarily badly on vanity schemes for the Mayor, on cutting bus services for my constituents and on pillorying motorists with this dreadful scheme, which is hated in Saltford, for a bus lane on the A4?

Mark Harper: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point about regional Mayors, which is that we have devolved powers and resources to them, but they are ultimately accountable to their constituents. I hope very much that if they are punishing the motorist, the motorist will punish them back at the appropriate time at the ballot box.

Andrew Bridgen: Now that the blight of HS2 has been lifted from North West Leicestershire, can the Minister update the House on when work will commence on reopening the Ivanhoe line, which will offer rail access for the first time in many decades not only to my constituents, but to our neighbours in South Derbyshire?

Huw Merriman: The Prime Minister’s Network North announcement gave that commitment on the Ivanhoe line down to Leicester. We are fully committed to that. I know that I am due to be meeting the hon. Member on another matter, so I will give him more of an update then.

Paul Howell: Like many, I welcomed what was going on with Network North, particularly the announcement of Ferryhill Station. When it comes to the final assessment and decisions, we need to ensure that the right question is asked, as the Green Book says. The right question is: what is the socioeconomic benefit to the towns and villages around the station, not to the GDP of the UK? May I ask for that assurance please?

Huw Merriman: That was another commitment that the Prime Minister made in the Network North announcement. My hon. Friend has campaigned for Ferryhill Station for so long, and I thank him for bringing it forward. The business case will look at the socioeconomic conditions that he mentions, and I am confident that we will be able to get spades in the ground for his station very shortly.

Ian Mearns: LNER is going to consult again on altering the timetable to increase the frequency of trains from Edinburgh and Newcastle to London, but that inherently means a reduction in services to West Yorkshire, Manchester and Merseyside. That is  very sad, and it is bad for the northern economy. This is not a timetabling issue; it is a capacity issue on the east coast main line. Can we have some investment in the east coast main line, north of York, to remedy those problems?

Huw Merriman: As things stand, we are unable to operate that service because the trans-Pennine route upgrade, which is delivering the billions of pounds’ worth of investment to enhance the route that the hon. Member asks for, is currently being constructed. That will provide the bandwidth. As I mentioned, today we hope to get a decision from Transport for the North that will improve services and add an extra service north to south. Then, with the multi-billion pound investment in the trans-Pennine route upgrade, we will get east-west service improvements as well.

Sara Britcliffe: In Hyndburn and Haslingden, we are hoping to have a very happy new year, as we hope to hear the announcement that both Rishton Station and Church and Oswaldtwistle Station have been successful in the Government’s Access for All scheme. Can any indication be given of when we might hear the announcement, and will the Government look favourably on them?

Huw Merriman: It is worth noting that 75% of all rail journeys now take place from step-free stations, with 220 stations made step-free under Access for All. We have 300 in the list for the next batch, and my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that hers are in that long list. We will decide shortly which ones to take forward next year.

Barry Sheerman: Will the ministerial team stop briefing against hydrogen combustion engines? The fact is that hydrogen is on its way, in trucks and JCBs. Cummins in my constituency is prepared for three years. [Interruption.] When will the Secretary of State stop?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Hang on a minute. Do not take advantage, Barry, because I will not call you again otherwise.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. Not only are we not briefing against hydrogen combustion engines; we are very supportive of them. I have been to Cummins. I have been to JCB. I have looked at the fantastic work that is being done developing hydrogen. We have some world-leading companies here. The Department is very supportive, and working closely with them.

Andrew Gwynne: I commend the work of my disabled young constituent, Nathaniel Yates from Reddish, who has assessed every   single railway station in Greater Manchester. Too many of them are not step free. We have the money for Reddish North, but when can we get the money for Levenshulme?

Huw Merriman: I commend that work as well. In fact, the Great British Railways transition team has done a station accessibility study auditing every one of our 2,500 stations. That report is due out shortly. I hope that the team can work with the hon. Member’s constituency to come up with some good data and improve access for all.

Robert Goodwill: The key element of Scarborough’s successful town bid is the station gateway project, but getting permission from Network Rail to knock a new entrance into the back of the station is proving slow and bureaucratic. Can the Secretary of State gently lean on Network Rail a bit, please?

Mark Harper: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that question. I am sure that Network Rail will have heard that. I will take it away, raise it with Network Rail, and get back to him to let him know whether we can make that go faster.

Richard Graham: The latest of many improvements to Gloucester Station since 2010 includes vital work on the station underpass and forecourt; however, contractor costs have risen since the original station improvement fund award. Will the Rail Minister agree to meet me and Great Western Railways to resolve that potential issue?

Mark Harper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for that question. I am very familiar with the investment and work that is currently being undertaken at Gloucester Station, as it is the one that I use on a regular basis when getting the train to London. The Rail Minister will be delighted to meet with him to see whether there is more that we can do to take those matters forward.

Greg Smith: Inevitably, concerns about overcrowding will come up this afternoon at a Chiltern Railways drop-in at Marylebone with Buckinghamshire MPs, so can the Rail Minister assure me that the Government are doing everything possible to push Chiltern to improve?

Huw Merriman: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Department is working closely with Chiltern as it looks to get more rolling stock to replace some of its ageing diesel stock. There are capacity issues, as he notes, because more people are using the railways, which is a great success, but we will work with the operator to ensure that it gets the rolling stock it needs.

Venezuela: Threat to Guyana

Ian Liddell-Grainger: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office if he will make a statement on the urgent threat posed to Guyana by Venezuela and the Government’s response to it.
Mr Speaker, you of all people know the importance of the Commonwealth—[Interruption.] Sorry—late night.

Lindsay Hoyle: We dare not ask where.

David Rutley: I will not ask where either, Mr Speaker, but it is good to see my hon. Friend here right now.
We are deeply concerned about the recent steps taken by Venezuela with respect to the Essequibo region in Guyana. I know that will be a key concern to the shadow Foreign Secretary and Members across the House, and we share those concerns. We believe Venezuela’s actions are clearly unjustified and should cease. We are clear that the border was settled in 1899 through international arbitration. The Foreign Secretary has made that clear in a recent meeting and calls with President Ali of Guyana.
The UK, countries in the region and the international community have been swift to respond. I have been in close contact with partners in the region to urge de-escalation, and earlier this week the Minister of State for Development and Africa, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), attended an emergency meeting of the Commonwealth ministerial group on Guyana, which issued a clear statement rejecting the use of threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Guyana.
Brazil and other countries in the region have expressed their deep concern at the situation and warned against unilateral actions that threaten the peace and stability of the region. The UN Security Council met in closed session last Friday, at Guyana’s request, to discuss the situation. We note that a meeting will take place later today between President Maduro and President Ali under the auspices of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, CELAC, and hope that that will reaffirm the importance of a peaceful resolution to this important matter.
We will continue to work with allies and partners in the region and through international bodies such as  the UN Security Council, the Commonwealth and the Organisation of American States to ensure that the territorial integrity of Guyana is respected. I plan to visit Guyana in the coming days to further show our support for the Guyanese people on this vital issue. It is imperative that regional partners and friends across the House, in the region and around the world continue to press the Maduro regime to respect Guyana’s integrity and to avoid escalation.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I will try again, Mr Speaker.
I am delighted to hear that the Minister is going to Guyana, which is an important part of the family of the Commonwealth. I am also deeply pleased that the two  Presidents are meeting today in St Vincent to try to hammer out the situation. It must be of worry to this Government and to this House that a Commonwealth country is being set upon by a failing state because it wants to grab land to do oil exploration and take oil. That is not an acceptable position to anybody in this House.
The other problem is that the Brazilians are moving troops to their border to ensure its integrity, and I am also told that American military advisers are going to Guyana to help with the situation. The Guyanese have armed forces of 4,000; the Venezuelans have 350,000. I urge this Government to stand solidly behind Guyana, not just as a Commonwealth country, but as a country in South America. I remember that the last time there was an issue in South America, in ’82, it did not end well, and we stood for the oppressed. I urge this Government not just to send the Minister to visit, but to make sure that there is tangible help for the people of Guyana to encourage them to stand up for their rights.

David Rutley: The Government completely agree that the current situation is not acceptable. We are deeply concerned by the unilateral move by Venezuela over this region. Our position is absolutely clear and has not changed: the border was settled in 1899 through international arbitration. Venezuela must desist from its action. It has deliberately and unacceptably escalated the situation, and the people of Guyana deserve to be free from the threats to their country.
We work closely with our friends in the region. My hon. Friend mentioned Brazil. Of course, we have been in conversations with Brazil, which has taken a robust stance. I know that my Opposition counterpart with responsibility for Latin American affairs feels the same way. We are, across the House, completely opposed to this sort of action. We want peace and stability in Latin America to continue for decades to come.

Lindsay Hoyle: We come to the shadow Foreign Secretary.

David Lammy: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) for securing the question on this important matter.
The actions of Venezuela over the past few weeks have been provocative and dangerous. President Maduro has shown a determination to stoke historical grievances, attack recognised international borders and seek aggressive confrontation instead of good neighbourly relations. All that sounds worryingly familiar, because it is the playbook of President Putin. We have challenged it in Ukraine, and we must do the same in Guyana. We often talk in abstract terms about the importance of a rules-based international order, but this is its essence: that disputes are settled peacefully through proper legal and diplomatic processes, not through threats or intimidation; that settled and recognised borders are not subject to change through threat or force; and that the big cannot bully the small. We must be resolute in standing up to those with imperialist ambitions.
I welcome that there will be talks between the leaders of Guyana and Venezuela in St Vincent. I put on record my thanks to Brazil for its leadership on this matter, including the deployment of troops along its border. Those talks should be a mechanism to reduce the tensions  brought about by Venezuela’s actions, not a discussion about settled borders or a reward for threats. The Essequibo border was settled more than 100 years ago in 1899. Has the Minister spoken directly to Brazilian or American counterparts, or to key regional bodies such as CARICOM—the Caribbean Community—and the Organisation of American States, about responding to Maduro’s actions?
Guyana is a diverse, beautiful and proud country with close ties of history, friendship and family with the UK. As the child of parents who came from Guyana as part of the Windrush generation, I am living proof of our shared history. For my relatives, and for all the people of Guyana, this is a deeply troubling time. I am grateful that the Minister has indicated that he will go to Guyana shortly, and that the UK’s support for Guyana’s sovereignty is unwavering. What specific actions are the Government taking to ensure that, if the threat is followed through, Guyana’s sovereignty is protected?

David Rutley: It is good to see strong cross-party support on this vital issue. I certainly recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s interest in this matter from his personal perspective and from a geopolitical perspective. He is absolutely right: this is from the playbook of Putin and other dictators around the world, and it needs to be called out and stopped. We are grateful for the work that Ralph Gonsalves, the Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines, is doing to facilitate those conversations. They need to be about de-escalation; the border is a settled issue as far as we are concerned.
The right hon. Gentleman asks what action we are taking. I can assure him that there have been multiple conversations. The Foreign Secretary is absolutely concerned about this. I have held conversations with interlocutors in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and many other places. I was in Argentina for the inauguration at the weekend, and I met many interlocutors there who all share the concern. We will work with CARICOM, the OAS, the UN, and, of course, the Commonwealth, which is vital, to call this out and take whatever steps are required.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Father of the House.

Peter Bottomley: I am glad to follow the Opposition foreign and Commonwealth affairs spokesman in reminding the House and the Minister that when the United States persuaded the United Kingdom to go to international arbitration, the determination in 1899 was to leave that region as part of what is now Guyana, which became independent in 1966. The dispute with Suriname was settled some time ago by agreement. This should be as well, and Venezuela should go back to solving its own problems and exploiting its own hydrocarbons, if it chooses to do so, as it moves towards a more eco-friendly economy and preferably a better kind of politics as well.

David Rutley: The Father of the House makes a very important point. This is a settled matter, and Venezuela needs to sort out its own issues. There have been steps taken by partners in the region to try to help open the door to Maduro, and he has responded in this way. It is unacceptable.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the SNP spokesperson.

Brendan O'Hara: I thank the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) for securing this urgent question. It is indeed ironic that the day after the excitement of COP, here we are discussing the potential annexation of one country by its larger and more powerful neighbour because of the discovery of a huge oilfield containing 11 billion barrels of light crude. It matters not that the 1899 border issue remains controversial for Venezuela, because it has to respect international law.
I am pleased that the International Court of Justice has warned Maduro not to take any action that could alter the status quo, but can the Minister tell me what discussions the UK Government have had with representatives of the ICJ? Have discussions been had directly with the Venezuelans on behalf of the UK Government? To what extent does he share my concern that our previously weak response to states using dubious referendums, followed by the use of military force, to annex parts of a neighbouring country, as Russia did  to Crimea in 2014, has emboldened people like Maduro to believe that should he take military action, the consequence for him would be extremely limited?

David Rutley: Again, it is good to see support for Guyana across the House. Whether this is because of Venezuela’s aspirations about oil or some other matter, whatever that might be, its actions are completely unjustified. As the hon. Member indicated, we need to call it out. The 1899 border issue is settled. We support Guyana in its efforts to resolve this matter in whichever way it wants to through the ICJ, but it needs to be done peacefully.
The hon. Gentleman also makes an important point about Russia. These actions are opportunistic. There are huge issues geopolitically, and dictators or other Heads of Government should not seek to exploit these moments when there are far bigger issues at stake elsewhere in the world, so we need to call it out. As I said earlier, we are keeping this under very close scrutiny and will take whatever actions we think are appropriate, along with our regional partners.

Marco Longhi: I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) for securing it. I also thank the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), for his response. I do not often find myself in agreement with him, but, on this, I could not fault him on a single word. Both have raised the key strategic role that Brazil plays in the region. We are about to sign a defence partnership agreement with Brazil—in the not too distant future—so it plays a key strategic role. What further can the Minister do, particularly when he visits Guyana, to have enhanced conversations with Brazil to see what role it can play in making sure that we keep peace in the region?

David Rutley: That is a very good question from my hon. Friend. He knows more about Brazil than most people in the House, and I respect him for that knowledge and for the points he has made. Of course, we are working closely with Brazil. It has expressed its concern and warned against unilateral action. It has said that  there is no way that Venezuela’s military forces would be able to access Guyana through Brazil, and we will continue to work with it very closely. As he says, we have a strong relationship not just defence-wise, but as we look to its G20 presidency and its hosting of COP30.

Tan Dhesi: What we are seeing is a shameful and cynical move by Venezuela’s President Maduro to threaten and bully a smaller neighbour. We in the UK must make it clear that we cannot allow such threatening behaviour to continue, so what steps is the Minister taking, along with international allies, to affirm the UK’s unwavering support for Guyana’s sovereignty?

David Rutley: As I said in my statement, we have worked with the Commonwealth ministerial group to call out this action in joint harmony with our other relevant Commonwealth partners. We continue to work with other international bodies to call it out, and obviously, we will be in a position to form a view—along with others in this House—later today, after the meeting that is taking place in St Vincent and the Grenadines.

Nickie Aiken: I thank the Minister for confirming that the UK Government are standing with Guyana against Venezuelan aggression, sham referendums and the threat of annexation. Can the Minister confirm whether he has had discussions with the Commonwealth secretary-general about this situation to establish how the whole of the Commonwealth family can support Guyana at this worrying time?

David Rutley: That is an excellent question. I can confirm to the House that I have had conversations with Baroness Scotland. As secretary-general, she has taken a very strong lead: she has issued two statements and called the emergency session of the council of Ministers, which as I said, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Development and Africa attended. We will continue to work with the Commonwealth, which is a vitally important organisation in this context.

Andrew Bridgen: Does the Minister agree that whenever a country’s borders are threatened, they must be secured, or it risks undermining that country’s sovereignty, social cohesion and national identity?

David Rutley: I could not agree more—that is absolutely vital, particularly in this case. Latin America has been a region of peace for many, many years, and it needs to stay that way.

Andrew Gwynne: It is great to see the House speak with one voice in support of our Commonwealth friend and partner, Guyana. The Minister is right: these borders were settled in 1899. They are the borders that were transferred to the independent Guyana in 1966, and they are the borders that are internationally recognised. As the Minister also knows, President Maduro has said that he will immediately issue licences for gas, oil and mineral exploitation, in direct contravention—as we heard from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara)—of the ICJ ruling. What more is the United Kingdom doing to take this case up on the international stage with Guyana to make sure that ICJ rulings are adhered to?

David Rutley: We have already highlighted the work we are doing with the Commonwealth. We have talked about the international engagement, and obviously, the situation was also discussed by the UN Security Council last Friday. We are taking it at every single level, and it helps if, in this place, we condemn with one voice the actions that have been taken by Venezuela. That will be noted in each of those forums, so I commend the hon. Member for his very important words.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister very much for his response, and I am pleased to know that he will be in Guyana shortly—his presence will send a message. Guyana has an army of some 4,000 and a population of 800,000; Venezuela has an army of 125,000, plus tanks and aircraft, so it is very much the aggressor and the stronger of the two countries. When it comes to the potential annexation of a democratic country by somebody who many of us feel is a demagogue, part of the axis of evil—that is North Korea, Iran and Russia, and now we can add Venezuela to that list—it is very important that we take a stand. As a country, as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, could we not send a Royal Navy ship to Guyana? That is the sort of strong action we need to see.

David Rutley: It is good to get the last word from the hon. Gentleman—that is often his role. We are working hard through diplomatic channels to urge partners in the region to use bilateral contacts and regional groups to advise and mediate, in order to de-escalate the situation. I also bring to the House’s attention the fact that HMS Trent is heading towards the region to support action against narcotics trafficking.

Business of the House

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Leader of the House.

Lucy Powell: Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

Penny Mordaunt: The business for the week commencing 18 December will include:
Monday 18 December—Second Reading of the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill.
Tuesday 19 December—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill.
The House will rise for the Christmas recess at the conclusion of business on Tuesday 19 December and return on Monday 8 January 2024.
The business for the week commencing 8 January will include:
Monday 8 January—Second Reading of the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill.
Tuesday 9 January—Opposition day (2nd allotted day) debate on a motion in the name of the Leader of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.
Wednesday 10 January—Committee of the Whole House on the Finance Bill, followed by Third Reading of the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill.
Thursday 11 January—Debate on a motion on SEND—special educational needs and disabilities—provision and funding, followed by a debate on a motion on Jewish communities and the potential merits of a Jewish history month. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 12 January—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 15 January includes:
Monday 15 January—Committee of the Whole House on the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill.
Colleagues will also wish to be aware that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the February recess on Thursday 8 February and return on Monday 19 February, rise for the Easter recess on Tuesday 26 March and return on Monday 15 April, rise for the May bank holiday on Thursday 2 May and return on Tuesday 7 May, rise for the Whitsun half-term on Thursday 23 May and return on Monday 3 June, and rise for the summer recess on Tuesday 23 July. Further recess dates and business will be announced in the usual way.

Lucy Powell: May I first put on record our gratitude to Mark Drakeford, a model of public service and public duty? Mr Speaker, I wish you, House staff, Members’ staff, colleagues, journalists, security staff and our public service workers a very merry and restful Christmas. I thank the Leader of the House for finally announcing the recess dates. One thing we do know about next year is that it will be a general election year. I say—bring it on.
This is our last business question of the year, and there is a number of outstanding commitments that were promised before we broke up. First, on the infected blood scandal, can the Leader of the House confirm that the Cabinet Office will update the House on the compensation scheme before the House rises, as promised? As we discussed last week, the Government got things badly wrong by voting against the amendment from my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), and breaking another commitment to update us on progress would add insult to injury. Given her previous personal and ministerial commitments on this issue, can the Leader of the House ensure that that statement is made next week?
A new process of risk-based exclusions from the parliamentary estate of Members under investigation for serious violent or sexual offences has finally been published this morning. I thank the Leader of the House and you, Mr Speaker, for the sterling efforts in getting us to this stage. Given that we have now missed the original timetable of a motion on it before Christmas, when can we expect this to be scheduled?
Not only did the Prime Minister promise to stop the boats this year, which he has not done, he also promised to get his emergency legislation through in record time, yet there is no sign of the coming Committee stage in what the Leader of the House has announced today—some emergency. It is no surprise, however, because the Prime Minister is too weak to push it through. Yet again, the Conservatives are tearing themselves apart, with star chambers, the five families and so on, but they are not starring in a mafia saga. They are supposed to be running the country, but they are not fit to govern. While real families struggle to heat their homes, put food on the table and afford Christmas, this lot are just playing at politics. Can the Leader of the House even confirm that the Committee stage will come in January? In all their desperate attempts to persuade their colleagues this week, reports have emerged of enticements of Government funding to constituencies in exchange for votes, and not for the first time. Can she put on record that this is absolutely not the case?
The Prime Minister’s emergency reshuffle has left  us with no disabilities Minister. Given the Women  and Equalities Committee’s damning report on the Government’s disability strategy just last week, can the Leader of the House confirm that someone will be appointed to this position before Christmas?
It has now been a full month since we have had a statement from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, despite major global conflicts. That is unacceptable—[Interruption.] Hon. Members are saying that there is one today, but that was thanks to Mr Speaker granting yet another urgent question to bring Ministers to this place. The Leader of the House and I are both appearing before the Procedure Committee on Monday, so I will not raise the issue of the Foreign Secretary coming here now. Last time I raised the lack of accountability, she assured me that the Government would regularly update the House, and that the Foreign Secretary was “forward leaning.” Will she ensure that we get a proper update on the unfolding situation in Israel and Gaza before the House rises, and regularly thereafter, so that Ministers do not need to be dragged here via urgent questions?
Today also looks like “take out the trash day”, with a large number of written ministerial statements on important matters. Will the Leader of House ensure that there is proper scrutiny of those issues, with no sense that the Government are ducking accountability to this place?
Finally, would the Leader of the House like to take this opportunity to apologise to 11-year-old Liam Walker for the disdain and tone deaf response that the Prime Minister gave to his plight yesterday? The Prime Minister’s sneering, angry response made him look small, and disregarding of Liam’s plight. Liam’s family do the right thing, yet through no fault of their own, they are homeless. Their story is the story of thousands of other families this Christmas. Will the Leader of the House do what the Prime Minister failed to do, and show some empathy and humility, and apologise for how her Government have failed working families who are facing destitution and homelessness this winter?

Penny Mordaunt: May I also take the opportunity to wish everyone a wonderful Christmas and a happy new year, especially all the staff who work on and off the estate to help us do our jobs and keep us safe, and all those who will be working over the festive period to serve our nation and their communities? 2023 has been a hard year. The British people have faced many challenges, and I am proud of their stoicism and grit in getting through it. Thanks to them and their efforts, the economy is turning a corner and inflation is coming down. Despite the challenges, we have stood by our allies, in particular Ukraine. We have taken care of each other, and we have crowned our new monarch. I wish everyone a peaceful and restorative Christmas, with good wishes and hope for the new year.
Let me start with the hon. Lady’s final point about young Liam. I deeply regret her choosing to paint Conservative Members as uncaring and non-empathetic. She knows that is not the case. Indeed, I pay tribute to one of our colleagues, who I think is in The Telegraph this morning, who made heroic efforts to prevent harm from being done to a young man who was homeless on London’s streets.
I can give the hon. Lady that assurance on infected blood, and I am expecting the House to be updated on that important matter by the Minister for the Cabinet Office. She is right that the Minister with responsibility for disabilities is important, and I am sure that that reshuffle announcement will be made imminently. I also remind the House that every Department has a disability lead in place. I echo the hon. Lady’s thanks to all Commission members for the work done on risk-based exclusion. I think Mr Speaker has written to Members today, and we will of course bring a motion to the House early in the new year. I will also ensure that Members are kept up to date with the ongoing and tragic situation in Gaza over the festive period. I know, as I hope do all Members, that FCDO consular services are there 24 hours a day for any hon. Members who have constituents who need assistance.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of our further legislation to stop the boats. I always find it amusing that Labour Members are keen to see this legislation brought forward so that they can stop it. They say that they have changed, but they have not, and I am afraid their actions speak  louder than words. They talk tough on borders, but they have voted every time against our measures to strengthen them. They talk about equality while not paying women a fair wage. They talk about a charter for workers while siding with strikers and eco-zealots who prevent them from getting to work. They talk of fiscal responsibility, but would borrow a further £28 billion more. They talk of opportunity, but would tax education and halve apprenticeships. The hon. Lady has talked empathetically on the cost of living, yet is very happy to clobber hard-working people who can least afford it with higher taxes, the ultra low emission zone and lower tax allowances. They talk of hope, but they would bring despair, as many in Wales are now having to endure. I put on record my thanks to Mark Drakeford for his service, but I remind people of Labour’s record in Wales.
It is a good job that the nativity did not take place in Labour-run Wales. Mary and Joseph would have been clobbered for an overnight stay levy. She would have had poor maternity services. The shepherds would not have been able to take the time off to bear witness due to cuts in the rural affairs budget, and the three wise men would have arrived post-Epiphany due to the blanket 20 mph speed limit and the poor condition of the road network. Do not fall for what Labour says; look at what it does when in power. Not all men who wear red and promise free gifts are to be trusted. Further business will be announced in the usual way.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Father of the House.

Peter Bottomley: My right hon. Friend has announced that there will be an Opposition day debate on Tuesday 9 January. Have the Opposition told her that they want to make it on the Leader of the Opposition’s claim that he will bulldoze through local objections to development?
May I draw her attention to the website of a man called Chris Dixon, who says he is in favour of building on the Goring gap in my constituency? He says that people who want to stop that development should vote for me, and those who want to have it built on should invite Angela Rayner to come down and see it. Will the Leader of the House say whether the Labour party is willing to expose its desire to build on green gaps to public debate in this Parliament?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am not sure that the Leader of the House is responsible for the Labour party. I know that the Father of the House must have told the Member who he has brought into question that he would name her today.

Penny Mordaunt: Mr Speaker is always right, and I am not responsible for the scheduling of topics for Opposition day debates. I know that my right hon. Friend will have sent a message today that if that is what Labour is minded to do, he will be there and spoiling for a fight.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Deidre Brock: Nollaig Chridheil agus Bliadhna Mhath Ùr a th’uile daoine—[Translation: “Merry Christmas and a happy new year to everyone.”]
Last week, the Leader of the House was unwilling or unable to answer my question about her Government’s latest immigration mess. Instead, she gave Scots another lecture from Westminster, this time about morality and her own global leadership. A lecture on morality from this Tory Government: pantomime season is truly upon us. Was she talking about the morality of her “pile the bodies high” Government, or perhaps recalling the time her Government said, “We are breaking the law, but only in a limited way”? Is it the morality that allows water companies to make a fortune in profits as children get sick swimming in raw sewage off the coast of England, or the morality that forces families of service personnel to live in quarters so riddled with damp and mould that they are judged too poor for human habitation? Perhaps that is the morality she had in mind. Could it be the morality of the return of near-Victorian levels of destitution across the UK? Perhaps she was thinking of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. Perhaps she could lecture them about morality and see what they have to say to her.
Before the Leader of the House launches into—mercifully—her last video nasty of the year, I hope she can answer my question today. It is the same question I asked last week, which remains unanswered and mired in confusion thanks to her Prime Minister. This morning’s statement on “Citizens’ rights” might well address it, but we should have debated such drastic changes before now in this place anyway. It is supposed to be the season of goodwill, but so many of our constituents are now deeply concerned and frightened by the announcement, so I will ask again on their behalf: if the spouse or partner of a British citizen is currently living in the UK on a leave to remain visa, can they be deported if their salary is less than £38,700? Yes or no?

Penny Mordaunt: Let me start by wishing the hon. Lady and her SNP colleagues a very happy Christmas. I point her to what the Prime Minister said yesterday in Prime Minister’s questions about further information coming forward in the new year. I said last week that I fully understand that people in particular professions, including the armed forces, will want answers. My office stands ready to facilitate any particular cases or requests in the meantime. Transition arrangements will be announced shortly, as the Prime Minister put on record loud and clear yesterday.
I do not know where to start with the hon. Lady’s lecture on morality. She mentioned vulnerable people, yet this week the SNP announced that Scotland’s national care service will be pushed back three years. She mentioned the armed forces, but her Government are insisting that they pay higher tax, and this Government are compensating them for that. If she wants to find Victorian levels of rats and rickets, she should go to SNP-run local authorities.
I think we should have a festive round-up on SNP morality: 12 hours of police questioning, 11 grand in roaming charges, 10 years without school inspections, nine sham embassies, eight years of poor child mental health, seven years without ferries, six years shirking welfare, five hundred million overspent on Edinburgh’s tram, four million to install a heat pump, three high-profile arrests, two overseas jollies, and a dodgy Jaguar EV. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I have succeeded in bringing a smile to the hon. Lady’s face. I must thank her for being the gift that keeps on giving at business  questions. I hope that in 2024 better things are destined for the Scottish people: better education, health, transport and opportunities, and better value for the taxes they pay. I hope that all their MPs will come here, represent their interests and take responsibility for the authority that they are given. That is my Christmas wish.

Jason McCartney: In the new year, can we have a series of debates celebrating all the positive things happening in our constituencies? They include the £64 million of levelling-up cash for Marsden Mills and the Huddersfield-Penistone line in my area; a brand-new A&E unit; the west Yorkshire investment zone investing in Huddersfield university; the trans-Pennine upgrade; and wonderful community groups such as those in Milnsbridge Village Hall and the Friend To Friend group, where I will join pensioners tomorrow for a Christmas lunch. Can we please celebrate these positive things happening in our communities?

Penny Mordaunt: I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the considerable achievements that he and his constituents have secured over the past year. I am reminded of the, very sadly, late Benjamin Zephaniah, who as guest editor on the “Today” programme insisted that it be just about good news. We could all do with that occasionally. My hon. Friend knows how to apply for a debate in the usual way.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

Ian Mearns: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the Backbench Business for the first week after the Christmas recess and for the extensive list of recess dates, which we will fill up our diaries with. I mentioned that last week, so it is welcome to get the dates in the bag.
I am afraid to say that I am of such an age that I have been a school governor for 40 years continuously. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am the chair of governors at a primary school in Gateshead, where 52% of the youngsters are entitled to free school meals. Holiday hunger is not a concept confined to the summer recess. Can we have a statement from the children’s Minister on whether the Government have plans to tackle holiday hunger in the winter break, when cold exacerbates the problem and adds to the misery of hungry children?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for this work on the Backbench Business Committee and for his question. He will know that it was the topic that the Youth Parliament chose to debate when they visited the Chamber. There has been huge focus on provision in schools, particularly during holidays. If he has particular concerns, I will be happy to raise them with the Secretary of State for Education, as the next questions are not until 29 January.

Andrew Percy: Hannukah semeach, Mr Speaker. This evening, of course, is the last evening on which Jews will light their hannukiah. It is normally the time of year for joy, but for many Jews we are frightened to show our Jewishness on the streets of this country, not least because of the appalling examples of Jew hate we have seen on some of the  marches. But it is Jewish students on our campuses who have it the worst. At a recent Jewish Society event at Warwick University, its WhatsApp chatgroup was infiltrated and freshers were called, “effing dirty Jewish…”—I will not say the last word. Visibly Jewish students at St Andrews were egged and an emeritus professor at Bristol called for her followers to blow up the Jewish Labour Movement. May we have a debate on antisemitism on campuses, so that Members can hold vice-chancellors, some of whom are doing a good job on this, to account for what is happening on our campuses?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important point. This was also raised last week in the wake of the appalling testimony that was given in the United States from three of its universities. His question is very balanced, because many universities are doing a very good job on this front. I will just put on record my thanks to the noble Lord Mann, the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and my own fantastic Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards), for the work that they have done with others in producing a very good report on this subject. It is incredibly important that those universities that are not doing what they should do—we know there is no excuse, because the bulk of universities are doing a fantastic job—really get their act together. They owe it to this country and everyone in it, in particular the Jewish community, to get that right. I again pay tribute to the work of the Union of Jewish Students, who do so much work to combat the terrible antisemitism that is unfortunately lingering in some of our academic institutions.

Alex Davies-Jones: This has been a very difficult week for Pontypridd and Taff Ely. Last night, a serious fire and explosion in Treforest occurred and sadly one person is still unaccounted for. On Monday evening, three young men tragically lost their lives in a car crash in my home village of Tonyrefail, and two people are still fighting for their lives in hospital. This awful news has hit our close-knit community very hard and all our thoughts are with Callum, Jesse and Morgan’s loved ones at this very difficult time, as well as all those still recovering. Our emergency services acted in an exemplary manner in both situations, and I would like to place on record my sincere thanks to everyone who ran towards the danger and tried to help.
Sadly, in the wake of these accidents distressing footage from both scenes and malicious, cruel posts about the victims have been uploaded to social media. Some platforms were quicker to act than others and did remove some of the offensive posts and footage. I know that the Leader of the House takes a personal interest in online safety, so will she be willing to meet me to discuss a way forward to close the gaps and tackle this issue?

Penny Mordaunt: I am sure that I speak for all of us when I say how sorry we are and how much our thoughts are with all those who have been affected by these appalling tragedies in the hon. Lady’s constituency. It is terrible when one terrible thing happens, and I know it rocks a whole community, but to have two such terrible events take place together is truly shocking. Of course, I will be very happy to meet her to discuss what  more can be done. She knows I take a personal interest in ensuring that social media companies take their responsibilities very seriously. If there is anything we can do to assist her community, we stand ready to do so.

Bob Blackman: Abdul Wahid is the head of the UK arm of Hizb ut-Tahrir. He utters the most vile antisemitism possible and praised the attacks of 7 October as being a punch in the face for Israel. Not only is he uttering this vile abuse, but he is also an NHS GP in Harrow. There is a large Jewish community in Harrow and they will be fearful of going to their GP in case he is the one who sees them. May we have a debate in Government time on how we can root out extremists from public service? In my view, his right to be in this country should be cancelled and he should be deported. We must ensure that extremism is not allowed in our public services.

Penny Mordaunt: I know that many Members will be aware of this shocking case. My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on specific details of what might be happening with regard to an individual, but I can say that the Community Security Trust has been recording an increased number of antisemitic incidents and hate crime, notably since the start of the current conflict. Of course, these attitudes and actions are utterly indefensible and should not be tolerated regardless of a person’s walk of life, but it is all the more shocking when that person has been charged with carrying out a public service, especially one that requires the trust and confidence of the local community. I am sure that this is not the last we will hear about the case that my hon. Friend has raised.

Daisy Cooper: Liberal Democrats have long supported a community-led rather than a developer-led planning system, and my constituents are waiting eagerly to hear what changes the Government may make to the national planning policy framework. The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has indicated, both on air and in print, that an announcement is due to be made this week. I presumed that means an oral statement to the House so that Members can scrutinise any changes that might be forthcoming, but I note that no such statement is to be made today and that, as yet, there has been no written statement either. Can the Leader of the House please tell me whether there will be an oral statement from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on the changes to the framework before we break up for Christmas?

Penny Mordaunt: As the hon. Lady will know, the next oral questions to the Secretary of State will be on 22 January, and I will ensure that he has heard of her interest in this matter. In respect of legislative business, I will make further announcements, and the House will be updated on statements in the usual way.

Rehman Chishti: The Leader of the House will have seen the statements made in May by the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), about excessive rates of pay for Post Office executives. There is a real challenge in my constituency, in that residents are not receiving their mail on time, including medical notes and financial statements, which cannot be right.
I have written to those at Royal Mail asking them to address this problem as a matter of urgency. We are coming up to Christmas, and people, some of whom are elderly, cannot receive communications from their families. This is not only an issue for my constituency; it affects all of us over here. May we have an urgent statement on the Floor of the House about Royal Mail’s performance, and in the meantime will my right hon. Friend please ask the Under-Secretary of State to speak to Royal Mail, again as a matter of urgency, to ensure that the matter is addressed?

Penny Mordaunt: I am sorry to hear this issue being raised yet again. Many Members have already raised it, and I know that my hon. Friend is working very hard to secure a better service for his constituents. I will certainly make sure that the Under-Secretary of State has heard about his concerns, but I think that what we can all do locally is urge against actions that exacerbate such situations, such as industrial action.

Clive Efford: On Tuesday, at the Premier League stakeholders’ meeting, discussions about the financial package deal between the Premier League and the English Football League broke down. The representatives of the Premier League cannot agree among themselves about what that package should be, let alone come to an agreement with the English Football League. We are waiting for the legislation that was in the King’s Speech, because we need a regulator with teeth and a backstop that can sort this financial package out. It is essential for the future of our national game that we have a strong and competitive English Football League as the foundation for the Premier League, sitting at the top, so when will we see that legislation?

Penny Mordaunt: I am aware that many Members will want the legislation to arrive very swiftly, and they will not have long to wait. The hon. Gentleman knows what I am about to say: namely, that I will announce it in the usual way. But I can reassure him that we are committed to introducing both a regulator and the legislation in good time.

Martin Vickers: May I again raise the issue of potential job losses at the Scunthorpe steelworks? As the Leader of the House will know, it has been raised a number of times, but this would not just affect those who will potentially lose their jobs; given the importance of the supply chain, the whole northern Lincolnshire economy would be threatened. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the House is kept up to date by means of a statement, perhaps early in the new year?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for the diligence with which he defends the interests of his local community and this sector, which is very important to the United Kingdom and our sovereign capability. He will know that questions to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade are on 25 January, and he may also wish to raise it with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on 16 January. I thank him for his ongoing work on behalf of his constituents.

Sarah Edwards: Many families in my constituency will struggle to heat their homes and put food on the table this Christmas, and some will  worry about whether they can even afford their home next year. Business should be booming, but owners are crumbling under soaring costs and business rates, yet the business of this House after the Christmas recess looks vague and out of step with their deep worries and frustration. Can the Leader of the House provide some clarity for the year ahead?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She will know that, with the autumn statement, we have done a raft of things to support small businesses in particular, from freezing business rates for the fourth consecutive year to particular support for the most vulnerable sectors. The autumn statement took our cost of living package to over £104 billion. We stand ready to assist her with any specific needs, but we made sure to take care of both households and businesses for the winter ahead.

Luke Evans: May we have a debate in Government time on improved education in England? I was elected four years ago this week, when one of the top priorities in my inbox was Hinckley Academy, which was inadequate and close to closing. Fast forward four years and, with Government investment, the Futures Trust coming forward and Lisa Hickman’s stewardship, Hinckley School is now rated good by Ofsted on every level. It is a fantastic success for my community. This is exactly what a Conservative Government can bring to education. Can we have a debate to highlight that fact?

Penny Mordaunt: I think that debate would be very well attended. We have an excellent record on education, and we have been right to focus on how we can have the greatest effect on social mobility and improved life chances. There are 30,000 more teachers and 10% more good or outstanding schools. We have soared up the international league tables on literacy and, of course, we have transformed the further and higher education landscape with an enormous uplift in apprenticeships, which are now world leading. That is in stark contrast to what is happening in Labour-run Wales and SNP-run Scotland.

Ian Paisley Jnr: In all parts of Northern Ireland, planning applications are subject to scrutiny by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, as is right and proper. However, delays in planning are often blamed on planning officers when the delay appears to rest elsewhere. The chief executive of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency has written to tell the head planners that he will no longer provide indicative response times for consultations, that he will no longer accommodate prioritisation requests and that he will no longer provide a response to any requests by telephone from chief planning officers. He is effectively saying, “Don’t call us; we’ll call you.” How can I best get this on the record and have a debate to make the Northern Ireland Environment Agency subject to proper timetabling?

Penny Mordaunt: The hon. Gentleman has found his own solution: he has got it on the record. I agree that hold-ups, delays and the inability to rely on fundamental services are huge problems that prevent people from  investing to get on with developments. He has found his own answer, and I thank him for his diligence on this matter.

Tobias Ellwood: May we have an urgent statement on speeding up the Government’s delivery plan on sustainable aviation fuel? I have spoken to global businesses, including Boeing and Airbus, and there is a very live and real risk that we will lose the race to secure vital international investment as these aerospace giants take their intellectual property elsewhere. Will the Government seriously speed up their delivery plan? Their so-called revenue certainty mechanism is not due for completion until the fourth quarter of 2026. If we do not act faster, we will lose this vital global investment.

Penny Mordaunt: My right hon. Friend raises a very important point. Of course, we have done a huge amount and are currently considered to be world leaders in this space. All credit goes to the RAF, for some of the pioneering work it has done, and to the Virgin-led coalition that led to the first transatlantic flight on sustainable aviation fuel. He will know that the next Energy Security and Net Zero questions will be on 16 January, and Business and Trade questions will be on 25 January. I will make sure that the relevant Ministers have heard his interest today, but I also encourage him to raise it with them directly.

Barry Sheerman: Yesterday, a brave group of women lobbied us in this House about lobular breast cancer. It is a much lesser known cancer, but thousands of women in our country suffer from it, and the diagnosis and treatment are still not perfected. The wonderful people who lobbied us yesterday told me that just £20 million on research would make such a difference to getting real answers in both treatment and diagnosis. Will the Leader of the House allow us an early debate on the matter?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and all right hon. and hon. Members who went to the drop-in that took place this week to raise awareness of this important matter. Good diagnostics are key to good health outcomes, which is why we have stood up an additional 160 diagnostic testing centres to ensure that we are getting through the remaining waiting lists. He will know that the reforms we have introduced in the life sciences sector—which enable people, whichever institutions they sit in, to work on problems jointly, as opposed to in competition with each other—have led to breakthrough drugs, and we have also had our investment and research missions for particular therapy areas. I can tell that there is an appetite to do more in this area. I encourage him to raise it at the next Health questions, but I will also make sure that the Secretary of State has heard what he has said.

Nickie Aiken: Concern about dangerous cycling is becoming a major issue for my constituents across the Cities of London and Westminster, particularly with the increased number of e-bikes on our roads, which can reach 15 to 30 mph. My constituents are concerned about cyclists  going up one-way roads the wrong way, cycling on the pavement, and cycling through red lights or over zebra crossings. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is time that the Government looked at regulating e-bikes, and can we have a debate in this place to discuss this whole issue?

Penny Mordaunt: I am sorry to hear about that issue in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I thank her for raising it. She will know that the next Transport questions are on 8 February. I am sure she will take that opportunity to raise the issue directly with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), but as that is a little time away, I will make sure that he has heard what she has said today. With respect to delivery companies that use these vehicles, the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), wrote to the major delivery companies to remind them of their obligations in this respect.

Tulip Siddiq: The Royal Free Hospital is a jewel in the crown of my constituency. The maternity unit holds a special place in my heart, because I had both my children there and received wonderful aftercare from the doctors and nurses there. I am very concerned to hear that there are now plans to consult on the closure of the maternity unit at the Royal Free Hospital. Will the Leader of the House grant us a debate in Government time to discuss the potential closure of the maternity units at the Royal Free Hospital and other hospitals across London?

Penny Mordaunt: I am sure that all Members would join the hon. Lady in singing the praises of the Royal Free, which has an incredible reputation. She will know that these are matters that must be consulted on locally, and it is for local commissioners to decide what needs to happen at a local level. However, I know that the new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is keen to ensure that commissioners are doing their job well, so I will make sure that she has heard what the hon. Lady has said today. I would also encourage her to raise it with the Secretary of State directly, as she may be able to assist and ensure a better outcome locally.

Matthew Offord: I recently wrote to the then immigration Minister to raise concerns about an individual who had been residing illegally in my constituency for 17 years. After repeated asylum applications, rejections, appeals and abscondments, the Home Office failed to remove him. Last July, he suddenly disappeared and went to France, but when the French refused to accept his immigration appeal, he came back on a boat. Subsequently, the Home Office gave him the right to remain. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that that is an insult to all our constituents and to genuine asylum seekers? Can she help me to get a response from the appropriate immigration Minister about why that series of events was allowed to happen over 17 years?

Penny Mordaunt: I will certainly ensure the Minister for Illegal Migration has heard what my hon. Friend has said. This is a classic case of exactly what we are trying to prevent from happening in the future. There is no silver bullet for getting our system fit for purpose.  Many things need to be done, and that is why we have brought through subsequent legislation to give us more powers and, concurrently, to stand up new operational systems to help us detect and deter such people.
I encourage everyone to support further legislation that comes forward, because it is having an impact. The number of small boat crossings is down by a third in the last 12 months and it is continuing to drop. We have frustrated the business model of the people smugglers. We are stopping them getting access to boats and many other practical things. Processing in the Home Office has increased over the last 12 months by 250%. I think the case my hon. Friend raises would be a good case study for the Home Office to look at. I remind hon. Members that the Home Office is providing bespoke one-to-one surgeries with all Members if they need them, face to face or online.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. Just a little reminder that we have several statements and then two debates, so questions should be fairly brief.

Grahame Morris: In 2018, I was approached by an elderly constituent who had fallen victim to a bank fraud because of an abuse of trust. It took six months for the bank to admit fault. I raised the issue with Durham Constabulary in 2019, but the case remains unresolved after nearly five years, mainly due to a severe lack of resources, with only one forensic accountant in the constabulary. Tragically, my constituent lost her husband during this time and her own health has suffered, more from the stress of the long investigation than from the initial crime. This is not justice—we are failing victims of crime. Will the Leader of the House intervene and give her advice on how best to seek a resolution?

Penny Mordaunt: I am very sorry to hear about the distress suffered by the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. He will know this is an area of huge concern, particularly at this time of year, and the Government and our agencies are running public information campaigns to try to ensure that people do not fall victim to this kind of crime. Every single crime must be investigated, and people brought to justice where possible. I will ensure that the Home Secretary has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said today, as Home Office questions are not until the new year, and see what more can be done on the particular case that he raised.

Michael Ellis: Can we have a debate on anti-Jewish business decisions in the United Kingdom? An advertising company called London Lites had a contract with families of Israeli hostages to display pictures of hostages on its electronic billboards in London. Under antisemitic pressure, the company has breached the contract and taken down the adverts, denying a voice to hostages and their families, and playing into the hands of terrorists. No doubt anything else whatsoever can be advertised on those billboards, apart from Jewish victims of terrorism. What can be done about this scandal?

Penny Mordaunt: That is so depressing to hear and I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for raising the matter. Businesses have to operate in complex environments. The situation in Israel and Gaza is highly complex and there are different views, across the House and the country, about what is going on, but some things are really simple. Standing in support of the hostages who remain in the hands of Hamas, nine of whom are children, showing them support and keeping them in the public eye is a good thing to do—it is not difficult to arrive at that conclusion. I hope that the company will reflect on what it has done and on the reputational damage I think it has done itself. I encourage all of us—businesses and individuals—to show some compassion, particularly over the festive period, and keep a spotlight on these poor souls.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. Just a little reminder that it is important to ask the Leader of the House about something that is within her responsibilities—whether a debate might be held, for example.

Patricia Gibson: As confirmed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Office for Budget Responsibility, interest on the UK’s £2.6 trillion debt will be £22 billion higher this year than was forecast in March. It will now reach £116 billion, equating to £318 million of taxpayers’ money every day, or six times Scotland’s annual NHS budget. Will the Leader of the House make a statement explaining  the impact on public services in Scotland and across the UK next year, given the UK’s need to service its growing mountain of debt?

Penny Mordaunt: We have just had the autumn statement, and the hon. Lady will know that the Office for Budget Responsibility said that we have more headroom than had originally been forecast. Only an SNP MP could ask such a question when we are about to hear the Budget of the Scottish National party—a Budget in which it has no plan to pay for the public pay settlements that it has committed to, and which is expected to have a massive black hole.

Elliot Colburn: May I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all the House staff a very merry Christmas? Carshalton and Wallington residents are excited to see the progress that is being made on the improvements at St Helier Hospital and on the building of a second hospital in Sutton, protecting A&E and maternity services locally. Can we have a debate in Government time to discuss the progress of the new hospital programme?

Penny Mordaunt: I congratulate my hon. Friend on all his campaign successes in getting those new facilities. It is not just about the bricks and mortar, but about the healthcare professionals who will operate in them. Having a debate on this matter to look at progress against our capital programmes, and the fact that we have smashed our manifesto commitments on recruiting healthcare professionals, would be a jolly good idea.

Andrew Gwynne: The Leader of the House is probably unaware of this, but I am a special guardian to my four-year-old grandson.   Lyle is not unique in being looked after by his grandparents; there are 180,000 children across the United Kingdom who are subject to kinship arrangements. I understand that the Government will publish their kinship strategy tomorrow. It is a shame that they did not do so today so that we could have a statement. May I ask the Leader of the House whether we can have a statement on the strategy on either Monday or Tuesday, before the House rises, because so many kinship carers are anticipating what is in that document?

Penny Mordaunt: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good suggestion. I thank him for all that he does in this respect, and I will certainly make sure that the relevant Minister has heard his request.

Jack Brereton: Last week, we had the launch of Ceramics UK in Parliament. The sector suffers from a number of challenges, particularly due to energy costs and the need to decarbonise. Will my right hon. Friend facilitate a debate in Government time about the support needed for the ceramics sector and other energy-intensive sectors?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for all that he is doing to champion his constituency, and this sector in particular. Not only are an enormous number of jobs related to those products, but there is a knock-on effect on the tourist and hospitality sector in particular parts of the country. I congratulate him on raising the profile and the needs of the ceramics sector. He will know that the next questions to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero are on 16 January, but I will write this afternoon and make sure that she has heard what he has said.

Charlotte Nichols: Back in February, the Prime Minister made a personal commitment to me on the Floor of the House that support would be made available for the bereaved classmates of Brianna Ghey. It was agreed in June between No. 10, the Treasury, the Department for Education and Birchwood Community High School that it would take the form of a package  of funding for the school to cover the cost of mental health professionals working with students and staff. It is now December, the trial in the national media spotlight is causing enormous welfare pressures in the school community, and the funding has still not been received because the DFE is saying that, despite the funding being approved, it cannot work out whose budget it should be taken from. There has been no progress since October, despite the best efforts of the school and myself to raise it with the relevant officials. Will the Leader of the House please intervene and ensure that the Prime Minister’s promise is upheld?

Penny Mordaunt: I will certainly do that. I think the Secretary of State for Education will want to cut through what sounds like nonsense bureaucracy and ensure that people get what they need. I will do it immediately after business questions.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I suspect that my right hon. Friend has not been invited to the social event of the year, which is Councillor  Rachel Gilmour’s yuletide knees-up in the village of Bampton in Mid Devon. She lives in a lovely house, which she shares with her husband. The chairman of scrutiny that she is, her party tonight is being paid for by local government funds, and that is not on. To be basking in the adulation of Liberal Democrat colleagues by public subscription is not a happy place to be. The head of scrutiny has also refused to scrutinise dodgy finances in Mid Devon’s doomed housing company, which we have mentioned before. Her failure to employ enough planning officers is a disgrace, and the whole Liberal Democrat leadership in Mid Devon is an absolute disaster. I just hope that she remembers to pay the rent on her rented accommodation. Can we be told, and could we have a debate on Mid Devon, please?

Penny Mordaunt: I think my hon. Friend has got what he wanted on the record. I hope that his local council will reflect on how it is using public funds.

Jamie Stone: What an act to follow! [Laughter.] Following the most amusing “Twelve Tartan Days of Christmas” from the Leader of the House, I rise with slight trepidation. Within the context of devolution, I have raised health many times in this place. At all times, the Leader of the House has been courteous and helpful in her responses. Nevertheless, the problems continue in Scotland. My constituents have to travel hundreds of miles to see a dentist, they can hardly get to see a GP, and now the A&E service at Raigmore Hospital is refusing all patients. It would be a splendid Christmas present to my constituency if the Leader of the House would grant a debate on NHS services in rural areas.

Penny Mordaunt: I am very sad to hear about the ongoing issues in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. It must be incredibly frustrating for him. It is incredibly frustrating for us. He will know that the previous Secretary of State for Health and Social Care offered England resources to assist with the backlog in Scotland, and the First Minister turned down that opportunity. I think that is a disgrace. I will continue to raise the issue. The hon. Member knows that health is a devolved matter, but we will do all that we can to improve the lot of his constituents.

Navendu Mishra: My local authority in Stockport states that the average waiting time for a blue badge parking pass is 12 weeks, but my constituents tell me that in reality the wait is often much longer. In addition, the rigid criteria to quality for a blue badge laid out by the Department for Transport mean that people with genuine serious and complex medical issues are frequently refused. That leaves many people who are in genuine need isolated and struggling to find adequate support for car parking. The key issues are the long wait times, the need for additional resources for local authorities, and the need to extend the qualifying criteria for those with degenerative medical conditions. As such, will the Leader of the House allocate Government time for a debate on the blue badge scheme in England?

Penny Mordaunt: I am sure that all Members have had casework relating to that. It is a complicated system. Local authorities have some discretion in the scheme. If  the hon. Member wants to give me the specific details of his case, I will try to get some advice for him from the Department.

Florence Eshalomi: Tomorrow marks a year since the fatal crush at the O2 Academy Brixton in my constituency. Will the Leader of the House join me in placing on the record Parliament’s condolences to the families of Rebecca Ikumelo and Gaby Hutchinson, who sadly died? A third victim remains in hospital, and the Leader of the House may be aware that the police have opened a corporate manslaughter charge. The families want justice. What steps can the Government take, and can we have a debate in Government time, to ensure that families get a timely response to tragedies such as that at the O2 Brixton Academy?

Penny Mordaunt: I am sure I speak for everyone in the Chamber and the whole House when I join the hon. Lady in her condolences and memories, particularly for Rebecca and Gaby, but also for all those affected by that appalling, tragic incident, which is still very vivid in all our minds. I shall certainly make sure that the relevant Departments—there will be a few that have an interest—have heard what she has said. It is obviously a live and ongoing case, so I am not able to comment further, but she has done a great service by reminding us of that anniversary and I shall make sure that Ministers have heard her words.

Rosie Winterton: We do have to be very careful if there are any ongoing cases.

Barry Gardiner: I am sure the Leader of the House will join me in my praise and thanks to London’s Community Kitchen and the Sufra food bank, which do such wonderful work in my constituency, but will she do more? In the new year, will she hold a debate in this place about the work of food banks across the country, not just so that we can praise and thank them for all that they do, but so that we can make them redundant?

Penny Mordaunt: I am very happy to join the hon. Gentleman’s praises not only for that particular organisation, but for the many food banks across the country for the work that that they do. There are different models to how they work; some are sustainable, with a focus on using food that would otherwise be going to waste, and with some there would be merit in their continuing. But of course we want everyone in this country to be confident about their financial resilience. That is why we have stood up an enormous cost of living help package—over £100 billion now—and why we have done so much to focus on lifting people out of poverty, whether through the tax system, other local support grants or, of course, the uplift in benefits and pensions that we saw continued again in the autumn statement. He will know how to apply for a debate and I encourage him to do so.

Andrew Bridgen: Children with special educational needs in Leicestershire have unfortunately often taken two years to complete the education, health and care needs assessment process. That is, at least in part, due to the chronic underfunding of Leicestershire County Council over many years by  central Government. I attended Education questions this week, where many colleagues raised concerns about special educational needs provision, so could we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Education on how we will resolve this unsatisfactory situation in Leicestershire and, I think, in many other places?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He may know that the Secretary of State for Education has a particular interest in this area, which was demonstrated during her stint at, I think, the Department of Health and Social Care. I will make sure that she hears what the hon. Gentleman has said with regard to his local authority area.

Anna McMorrin: Many of my constituents are facing the toughest Christmas that they have ever faced, with rising food bills, rising energy costs, rising mortgages and rents—it goes on and on. They are facing a cold and difficult Christmas. Does the Leader of the House accept that this Government are too weak and divided to stand up for the British people, spending millions instead on failing policies and flying Ministers back from critical climate talks to prop up a weak Prime Minister? Is it not time to call a general election and put the record of this failing Government to the test?

Penny Mordaunt: I, of course, disagree with the hon. Lady. We have a £104 billion cost of living package. We have doubled personal tax allowances. We have increased the national living wage. After the autumn statement, those on housing allowance will be receiving an extra £800 on average, those on universal credit £450 on average and pensioners £900 extra. We will do all we can to get people through these tough times, but the most important thing we can do is to control public spending and bring down inflation, and I encourage those on the Opposition Benches to support us in that effort.

Jim Shannon: Again, I bring an issue of concern to the House—I am grateful to be able to ask an important question. On 28 November, Iraqi Christian leaders made an official statement noting that, due to the dangerous situation, it was clear that Iraq was not doing its job of protecting the rights of religious minorities. Furthermore, some churches have stated that they will not hold Christmas services because of the volatile circumstances. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the Leader of the House and right hon. and hon. Members will probably attend church on Christmas eve and Christmas morning without any fear whatsoever. In Iraq, that will not happen this year. Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning the persecution of Christians in Iraq, and in calling for reform and greater protections for religious minorities in that country?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman again for shining a spotlight on the plight that individuals in other countries face because of their religious beliefs. I am sure that, whatever our faith, when we attend our services over the festive period, those individuals who are less fortunate and find themselves being persecuted and threatened will be in our prayers. I thank him for the opportunity to say that from the Dispatch Box.

Diana R. Johnson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Rosie Winterton: Does it relate to the business question?

Diana R. Johnson: Yes, it is directly related to one of the comments that the Leader of the House made. On Report of the Victims and Prisoners Bill, the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), announced that there would be a statement to the House on the infected blood issue. It was not clear from what the Leader of the House said whether that would be an oral statement or a written statement. Of course, I think that the House is expecting an oral statement, so I just want confirmation that that is what will happen.
These matters are often left to be discussed on the very last day before we go into recess. I urge the Leader of the House not to allow the statement to be on the last day, if possible, because that sends a signal to people—to the infected and affected—that they are at the back of the queue again when it comes to the Government explaining what is happening.

Rosie Winterton: The Leader of the House is still here, and I think she wishes to respond directly.

Penny Mordaunt: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The answer is yes, with the caveat that the right hon. Lady will understand: business is fluid, events happen and there is demand for particular statements. She will know from her meetings with the Minister for the Cabinet Office that he is a very diligent individual. He cares deeply about this issue, and I know that he will want to come to the House given the importance of the matter. I fully understand the optics that the right hon. Lady has described. She will know that I cannot give guarantees, but I hope that I have reassured her of our intent.

COP28

Graham Stuart: May I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as all the staff of this House and colleagues across the House, for all your hard work this year? I wish everyone a very happy Christmas.
It was a privilege to attend the summit in Dubai over the past two weeks. I was proud to represent a country that has cut greenhouse gas emissions more than any other major economy since 1990; that has boosted our share of renewable electricity from a rather dismal 7% in 2010 to almost half today, while almost entirely phasing out coal power; that has led the world in mobilising green finance; and that is now ensuring that we bring the British public with us on the transition to net zero, thanks to the Prime Minister’s plans to protect families from unnecessary costs and give people more time to adapt to changes.
While we are on track, the world is not. The global stocktake confirmed that emissions need to peak by 2025 and fall by 43% between 2019 and 2030 to achieve the Paris goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C. The current pace of global decarbonisation is well behind that trajectory, and the urgency of the climate challenge means that we cannot delay any further.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has underlined the importance of transitioning towards renewables, which are less vulnerable to price shocks. That is why our objectives throughout COP28 were clear: we needed to agree urgent action to ensure 1.5° remains viable as a ceiling, including trebling global renewables, doubling energy efficiency and phasing out unabated fossil fuels; and we needed to reform international finance to unlock the trillions required in climate funding.
Today I am delighted to say that we have secured a final agreement that supports those goals. For the first time ever, we have a global agreement on a transition away from fossil fuels. The agreement on fossil fuels builds and expands on the UK’s leadership at COP26, which had the first reference to phasing down coal power, secured agreements behind efforts to decarbonise key sectors of the global economy and, most notably, saw the proportion of global GDP covered by net zero targets increase from around 30% to 90% during our presidency.
This week’s COP28 agreement is not perfect. We wanted to see more action on coal, and on ending the construction of new coal power plants in particular. Like some of the small island states, we wanted greater clarity and fewer loopholes in the agreement. None the less, this is a turning point. We are unifying the world around a common commitment, listening to the islanders of the Pacific and elsewhere, whose voices must be heard, and showing that we are responding to the science by moving away from fossil fuels and raising a torch to inspire action.
Throughout the summit, the UK made significant progress on delivering that action, building on our legacy from COP26. We were pleased to be one of over 130 countries to support the global pledge to triple renewable energy and double energy efficiency by 2030. As co-chair of the Powering Past Coal Alliance, I was delighted to welcome 13 new members, including the  United States of America and the United Arab Emirates—all committing to phase out unabated coal power. Through the Energy Transition Council, we are working with developing countries via our rapid response facility to help support them through the energy transition.
We also announced £1.6 billion-worth of new international climate finance projects, which will support developing countries to transition to net zero and adapt to the impacts of climate change, while also expanding green industries on a global scale. We joined the UAE’s climate finance framework, which sets out new principles to reform the global financial system, and we announced plans to launch the climate investment funds capital market mechanism to raise up to £7.5 billion over the next decade for green projects.
However, we recognise that keeping global warming to less than 1.5° is impossible without urgent action to protect, sustainably manage and restore forests. Following the historic agreement at Glasgow to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030, the Prime Minister made forests and nature a top priority for COP28. We agreed £576 million to safeguard 10 million hectares of forests and help half a million people in poor, rural communities, which are the most vulnerable to deforestation. I joined Brazil’s Environment Minister, Marina Silva, to welcome the Prime Minister’s pledge of a further £35 million for Brazil’s Amazon fund. That is on top of the £80 million we announced earlier this year, making the UK one of the scheme’s top three contributors. Finally, the new forest risk commodity measures in the Environment Act 2021 will ensure that there is no space on our supermarket shelves for products linked to deforestation.
However, that is not all. We secured the expansion of the breakthrough agenda—our clean technology accelerator—to cover 57 members and seven economic sectors, representing 60% of global emissions. Up to £185 million was announced for a first-of-a-kind, UK-led facility to help countries across Africa, Asia and Latin America to commercialise green technologies. Essential commitments to support resilience included up to £60 million of UK funding for loss and damage—a significant outcome of Sharm el-Sheikh, now carried forward into operation—an agreement on the framework for the global goal on adaptation, and an international green public procurement pledge to boost the use of green steel, cement and concrete. The UK endorsed a bold plan to triple nuclear power capacity globally, mirroring our domestic strategy for nuclear to make up a quarter of electricity production by 2050. There were also new partnerships with Brazil supporting industrial decarbonisation and hydrogen transitions, and a roadmap for the expansion of zero-emission vehicles in the developing world, backed by major donor countries. The great news is that British businesses will benefit hugely from all that, because as the world decarbonises it will use British expertise and skills as a springboard to realise the net zero transition.
Just as the Prime Minister announced measures to ensure that we bring consumers and households with us on the energy transition, our negotiations at COP have been about bringing countries with us, helping richer nations to set an example, encouraging the biggest polluters to replace fossil fuels with clean energy and working with developing nations to finance green growth. COPs are, above all, about people and our long-standing, trusted relationships with partners all around the world—  from big emitters to small island developing states—afforded us significant influence. I am proud of the role that my team played.
I pay tribute to the UAE presidency and Dr Sultan al-Jaber, who acted as COP President, as well as a host of others, including the High Ambition Coalition for its leadership jointly to deliver this result. I was delighted that the UK was able to support a strong delegation of international parliamentarians at this COP, including the first ever pavilion dedicated to parliamentarians. Despite this landmark agreement, and however successful the UK’s record to date, we still have such a long way to go to finance the transition and achieve our global ambitions, so the UK will continue to encourage others to join the UK on a net zero pathway in this critical decade and help deliver a just, prosperous and secure future for all the peoples of the planet.

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Ed Miliband: I thank the Minister for his statement and, indeed, for his regular commuting between Dubai and Westminster. Given that he brought the last Government down over fracking, I think he did not want a repeat performance, hence his return.
I welcome some of the key outcomes from COP28, including in particular the commitments on renewables and, crucially, a transition away from fossil fuels. That shows that the COP process, however flawed and imperfect, can provide a forcing mechanism for action by Governments. I pay tribute to the civil servants in the Minister’s Department for their hard work. Indeed, by a remarkable coincidence, the breakthrough in the negotiations occurred in the 24 hours when the Minister came home and they were left in charge.
But, for all the advances made, the truth is that the world is still hurtling towards disaster, way off track for keeping 1.5° alive. While we need an over-40% reduction in emissions by 2030, we are currently on track for emissions not to fall but to rise, and a temperature rise of approaching 3°. Even after the agreement, that is the reality, so the question for the world in the run-up to COP29 in Azerbaijan and COP30 in Brazil is whether good words at COP28 are finally matched by actions equal to the scale of the emergency.
These will be the defining two years in this decisive decade, which will shape the lives of generations to come, so we need a Government in the UK who will stop congratulating themselves and using the UK’s record as an excuse for future inaction and instead lead at home in a way that is consistent with what we are demanding of others. The Minister complained about a lack of action on coal at the COP, but the Government are opening a new coalmine, watering down emissions targets, seeking to drill every last drop in the North sea and starting a culture war on net zero. That has sent a terrible message to business, investors and other Governments; one that was heard loud and clear by people at the COP.
Let me ask the Minister four questions about the Government’s approach. First, the COP decision says that we need to “transition away from fossil fuels” in  line with the science. The science is unequivocal: for us to meet 1.5°, we must leave the vast majority of fossil fuels in the ground. He is right that many countries fear that some will seek to use loopholes in the COP agreement to avoid that reality. Our Government are doing precisely that: they say they want to drill every last drop in the North sea. The International Energy Agency, the Energy Transitions Commission, the Climate Change Committee and the former president of the COP, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma), all say that that is incompatible with the science. Can the Minister explain how he expects to persuade other countries in the next two years that they must leave their fossil fuels in the ground when he wants to extract all of ours?
Secondly, on targets for 2030 and beyond, the COP decision makes it clear that we need not just ambition but policies that will meet those targets. However, the Climate Change Committee says that we are way off track for our 2030 nationally determined contribution. Can the Minister explain how he expects to persuade other countries to have policies to meet their targets when anyone can see that we are miles off meeting ours?
Thirdly, on finance, I welcome the contribution on loss and damage, but does the Minister recognise the lack of confidence that the Government will meet their promise to provide £11.6 billion of climate finance? Can he explain how he expects to persuade other Governments to keep their promises on finance when people suspect we will not keep ours?
Fourthly and finally, when the Prime Minister spends his time at home describing net zero as a massive burden—which is what he does—how does he remotely expect to persuade others, particularly those in the developing world, that it is a great opportunity? The Prime Minister claimed that nobody at COP raised with him his dither and delay; I suspect that was because he was not there long enough to hear the truth. His U-turns have been incredibly damaging for our country.
The positive outcomes at COP came despite this Government, not because of them. Britain needs a Government who will show climate leadership again—not climate hypocrisy—to cut bills, deliver energy independence, grow our economy and protect future generations. In the next two years more than ever, the world needs climate leadership from Britain. Is the truth not that people at home and abroad have seen enough to know this Government cannot provide the leadership that the world so urgently needs?

Graham Stuart: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. I welcome what he said about the overall COP result and the need to celebrate it and build on it, and the fact that we need to ensure actions match words in this critical decade. That was one of the things we were wrestling with most, because new NDCs for 2035 are being worked on now for announcement ahead of the Belém COP in the Amazon in 2025, but it is in this decade that we need to bend the curve further. It is absolutely right that we do so.
The right hon. Gentleman has focused on performance, and I am pleased to say that this Government have met every single carbon budget to date. The only major targets set on climate change in this country that have  been failed were—let me think—the target of 10% renewables by 2010, set by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. The target of a 20% reduction in emissions by 2010, again set by the Government in which the right hon. Gentleman served, was also failed. Every single carbon budget for which this Government have been responsible since my then party leader became the first leader to call for the Climate Change Act 2008 has been met. Our record is without parallel, and I will not have it trash-talked down by the right hon. Gentleman, whose record in government is so at odds with the words he uses.
On oil and gas, we are a net importer. We are transitioning; as I have set out, we are reducing our emissions faster than any other major economy on this planet. None the less, according to the Climate Change Committee, about 25% of our power will come from oil and gas even in 2050. We will be using mitigation technologies to offset that, but the idea that we should replace domestically produced gas with imported gas with four times the embedded emissions, when it will make no difference to our consumption, is environmental nonsense. That is why we are standing up for the 200,000 people who work in our oil and gas industry as it transitions; it is why we support the £50 billion in taxes that comes from that industry; and it is why we must retain the expertise of people in the sector going forward. The Labour party puts at risk our net zero transition—a transition that it did not set out on properly when it was in government, and that this Government are delivering on. As I said, we have met all our carbon budgets to date.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s point about loss and damage. I assure him and the House that we will meet our target of £11.6 billion in climate finance on the original timetable set out by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister came to COP, personally committed and passionate about ensuring that nature and forests—on which we have been a leader—were championed at that COP. Hopefully, I will be able to give more detail about that when answering other questions. As we move into the coming year ahead of the Baku COP, we will focus on a new, collective, quantified financial goal. The Prime Minister, with his focus and expertise, will ensure that the UK is an absolute leader in getting that right, amplifying the billions we have today into the trillions we need tomorrow.

Alok Sharma: I agree that we saw significant progress at COP28, particularly the agreement on transitioning away from fossil fuels in the energy system. However, that agreement and all previous agreements are literally just words on a page; they will come to fruition only if all countries follow through in their domestic policies.
The Minister talked about raising the torch to inspire others. Once again, will he please review the plan to issue these annual oil and gas licences, and consider whether they are consistent with the international commitments we have made? Secondly, will he ask our right hon. Friend the Chancellor to urgently review the tax regime that gives significant subsidies to new oil and gas projects? This is a matter of trust. The Minister talked about the voices of the most climate vulnerable; they will be listening and watching, and they want to see action, not just from the UK Government but from every Government.

Graham Stuart: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his efforts at COP26 in Glasgow, including the significant measure on phasing down coal. [Interruption.] Could the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) be quiet for one second? He did so little in government, and he has so much to say now—it is quite a contrast, is it not?
Returning to my right hon. Friend’s serious and respectful question on oil and gas licences, as I said, we are a net importer. We are producing our own oil and gas to ever higher standards, and I am proud of the North sea transition deal, which has seen the industry work with Government to cut emissions from production by 50% by 2030. My challenge back to my right hon. Friend is this: in what way is there any linkage between producing to ever higher standards and a falling level of oil and gas? New licences simply allow us to manage the decline of a basin that is expected to fall at 7% a year and to halve in a decade, and will see us growing our independence from imports, even with those new licences. That is why we are issuing them.
On the issue of subsidies, our tax regime is set at 75% —among the highest in the whole world. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Doncaster North cannot win the argument when he is on his feet, so he tries to do it when he is sitting down. If only he had shown the same energy when he was in government, we would not have had the woeful inheritance that we alone have had to turn round. We are expecting £50 billion in taxes from the oil and gas sector, and without new licences to allow for the greening of the basin so that we reduce emissions, we would not be able to ensure that each barrel of oil and production of gas comes with a lower level of production emissions than it does today. That is our ambition.

Rosie Winterton: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Steven Bonnar: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
At COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland became the first developed nation in the world to commit funding to address loss and damage. Does the Minister agree that loss and damage funding should be prioritised to meet the needs of the communities that need it most, and distributed in a way that does not add to the debt burden of the global south? Scotland’s First Minister has welcomed the deal, especially the new pledge of $700 million for loss and damage, but of course, that still falls short of the funding that will ultimately be required. What is the UK doing to push for more funding down the line, and how much will it contribute now?
The former president of COP, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma), made an excellent point. The new agreement reached at COP28 commits all countries to transition away from fossil fuels. We welcome that agreement, to which the UK is of course  a signatory. Can the Minister outline how the UK Government’s plan to increase oil production in the UK aligns with the plans to transition away from fossil fuels, and how can we trust them?

Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the success of the loss and damage fund being operation-alised, but also to highlight the fact that it does not  match the need for the quantum of finance. He asked me how we will be working on that. We have been delighted to contribute £60 million, of which £40 million will be going directly into the fund to help get it going. However, if we are to get it to the scale we require, it is going to need more than donor finance, which is why we have explored, and will continue to explore, options for innovative financial flows. So much of the change we have made there, even if there was an opportunity for increased debt, would not be debt financeable anyway, and that is why, as he said, we must make sure that those who are most vulnerable are rightly dealt with.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the increase in production from oil and gas in the North sea. We are not seeing an increase in production; we are actually seeing production expected to fall at 7% a year. It is falling faster than is required globally. The IEA says that countries should be looking for a 3% to 4% reduction, and we will be reducing at 7%. As he knows, the UK has cut its emissions more than any other major economy on earth, has the most ambitious plans of any major economy to 2030 and, I believe, is the only one to have put into law a 77% reduction in the mid-2030s.
It is in that context, as we lead the world in reducing demand for oil and gas, that, none the less, our dependence on imports will grow. So it makes no sense whatsoever to see Scottish workers thrown out of their jobs in oil and gas, while we simply bring in imports from abroad with higher emissions, and lose the very subsea and engineering capabilities that we need for floating offshore wind, carbon capture and hydrogen. There is a complete disconnect in this crazy opposition to the maintenance of an already declining industry, which is fundamental to delivering the energy transition. Even if I have little hope for the right hon. Member for Doncaster North, who has always managed to have inconsistent and incoherent thoughts in his head all at the same time, I am hoping that perhaps the Scottish nationalist party can come to its senses and support Scottish workers and the energy transition.

Therese Coffey: I strongly welcome this statement. I congratulate the Minister and my noble Friend Lord Benyon on the negotiations, but also officials such as Alison Campbell and many of the officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who played a blinder in working towards and securing the agreement. I also want to pay tribute to the Minister for single-handedly making it possible for so many MPs to attend COP28. I pay tribute to him for doing that, recognising his previous presidency of GLOBE International UK.
I would like to say to my right hon. Friend that I was particularly proud of the mangrove breakthrough moment. I am conscious that the combination of nature and climate going together started very strongly in Glasgow and has accelerated. May I seek assurances from my right hon. Friend that we will commit to the £11.6 billion international climate finance funding? I know we have already started spending some of that. Will he also consider some of the approaches to things such as saltmarshes, the UK’s equivalent of mangroves, to make sure that continuing integration is part of our policy?

Graham Stuart: I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. I also thank her for her attendance at the COP and her continuing passion and ability to communicate   the importance of nature as a value in itself, but also how, dealt with in the correct way, it is complementary to development and to the maintenance of carbon sinks. Nature, and making sure that an understanding of it is central to our thinking, is so important.
My right hon. Friend thanked my officials, and she is right to do so. When Dr Sultan al-Jaber made the historic announcement of the UAE consensus, the central text of the various texts we agreed was that on the global stocktake. Having thanked the two Ministers who led the work on the stocktake, he immediately thanked Alison Campbell and Mr Teo from Singapore for their fundamental role. Our officials and my team were very much involved in drafting and pulling together words, and I was delighted to be supported by them as we met those from Saudi Arabia to China, India and other partners. I pay tribute to all those countries that, just like us, had to move from their initial positions to find a consensus.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the presence of MPs. My first COP was in 2005 in Montreal, and I remember feeling then that the elected parliamentarians, who make the political weather, were not properly accounted for. When I look back to that historic Climate Change Act 2008, I am proud of the fact that my then party leader, the noble Lord Cameron, was the first party leader to support it—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) could just be quiet for a moment, I was talking about parliamentarians. It was a combination of Friends of the Earth working with Back-Bench parliamentarians and a new green Conservative party, and an early-day motion—an instrument here that is often looked at askance—that triggered the Climate Change Act, which has been significant not only for the UK, but for the world.

Daniel Zeichner: One of the key themes at COP28 was food system transformation. Given the Climate Change Committee’s damning criticism of this Government’s failure to make progress on cutting emissions in the agricultural sector, could the Minister tell us what changes he expects to see in UK domestic policy as a result of the agreements reached in Dubai?

Graham Stuart: Again, the UAE can be very proud of the fact that, among so many other things, it really made sure that food was seen as an important part of this COP. He is right that land-use issues, agriculture and more sustainable agriculture are fundamental to delivering net zero. Under both my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and her successor, we are working very hard to do that at home, but we were also able to announce at COP support for more sustainable agriculture and land use abroad. He is absolutely right that this is an area on which we must keep complete focus. We must make sure that we deliver in that area, as in so many others, to pull together and maintain our net zero pathway.

Vicky Ford: In the very hot summer of 2022 almost 1,000 wildfires swept through Essex. We are not immune from the real dangers of global warming, so it was a huge honour to be one of the representatives, from this Parliament’s Energy Security and Net Zero  Committee, at the COP recently. The rate of new solutions, the rate of innovation and the rate of investment, as well as this new agreement, do bring hope, but promises must be delivered, and there is a gap between the science and the promises. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must continue to do all we can—locally, nationally and internationally—to close that gap?

Graham Stuart: I thank my right hon. Friend, and it was good to see her out in Dubai following up on so many of the issues, not least in recognising the needs of the most vulnerable and the poorest communities and countries around the world to ensure that they are not left behind and that we do have a just transition.
My right hon. Friend highlights the fact that she was a parliamentary delegate there, and we were proud to support GLOBE International UK, of which the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and I were previous chairs, to provide the first ever parliamentary pavilion at COP28. I pay tribute to Malini Mehra, who has headed up GLOBE. She came in when it was in a troubled position for a promised maximum of six months, and she is still there. She is committed to ensuring that parliamentarians are armed with the information they need.
The answer to my right hon. Friend’s specific question is, yes, absolutely. When we consider that the country that has decarbonised most over the 31 years from 1990 to 2021 has reduced its emissions by 48%—namely, us—and that the world, on a 2019 basis, has to cut  by 43% by 2030, with many large emitters pointing in the wrong direction, we can see that the challenge and the gap are not to be underestimated. COP28, with the UAE consensus, is significant, but there is so much more to do, and it has to convert into real change if we are to bend the curve further.

Barry Gardiner: There is much in the Minister’s statement that I commend and agree with, and in particular I reinforce his praise to our officials who played such a significant part in the negotiations. I regret the tone of some of his responses to colleagues, because the cross-party consensus on this issue over the past 30 years has been fundamentally important to the progress that we have been able to make. The science is clear; the world’s Governments are not. Those who are ready to deliver the transformation required to win the war against climate change are now considering whether the United Nations framework convention on climate change process is capable of delivering it in time. How long does the Minister think it will be before we see coalitions of the willing, such as the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance, imposing sanctions on those recidivist countries who are still driving our world towards disaster?

Graham Stuart: On the coalitions of the willing, the world is changing, and the EU has already legislated for a carbon border adjustment mechanism for selected parts of industry, which will put up a carbon tax or a carbon price at the border. There is a certain intellectual inevitability about that if costs of production in one country are not reflected in others, and ensuring that that is done in a just manner is important. I would hate to look back at COP28 and find that it was one of the last times that countries around the world were able, on  the basis of mutual trust, to talk to each other and come to a common agreement. The hon. Gentleman, who is highly experienced in this area, knows just how tender—I am sure there is a better word. The hon. Gentleman knows just how fragile the process could be if we do not all step carefully and ensure that we carry people with us.

Trudy Harrison: The commitment that 24 countries have made to triple nuclear energy capability by 2050 shows that the world has woken up to the most powerful, least land-taking, reliably proven net-zero energy provision that we have in the world. That is testament to my right hon. Friend, his Department and this UK Government, who committed first to 24 GW. Will he join me in recognising that without the world-class skills—I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the register, because I am happily married to a nuclear welder with 45 years’ experience—and the blue-collar workers and nuclear operators working every hour, every day on sites across the UK, we would not, and the world would not be in a position to back atomic energy? Will he join me in commending Britain’s energy coast, which recognise that for us to tool up, retrain, train and recruit, we must regenerate nuclear communities, which are often coastal communities? That is exactly what Britain’s energy coast, and the energy coast business cluster, is doing so well in west Cumbria.

Graham Stuart: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and her energetic, continual and well-informed—not least by marriage—understanding of the nuclear industry and its importance. I remember being at Sharm El Sheikh and it seemed that the only people talking about nuclear were 95 youngsters from some tiny pavilion at the back, who were going around promoting its importance. The science says that we cannot get to net zero without nuclear, in the appropriate places and with all the caveats. I remember saying to the incoming UAE presidency that, given their success with their Barakah reactors, and given the need to deliver nuclear and the UK’s determination for a renaissance, surely all countries involved need to come together and send a signal to the world, so that we are not leaving teenagers alone to champion the importance of nuclear. We as a country should step up loud and proud, and face down those who oppose nuclear from an ideological perspective, because it is so important not only to delivering net zero, but to delivering so many jobs in constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend around this country.

Mary Glindon: Licensing aside, what sensible proposals does the Minister have to offer hope to the 1,500 people living in my constituency, and the other 200,000 people he referenced earlier, whose jobs depend on oil and gas now, and who could power our clean energy future? Offshore Energies UK estimates that if we get the transition right, the workforce could swell by 50%. Where is his plan for those workers?

Graham Stuart: I thank the hon. Lady. In her coded way—we all know there is an election coming up—I suppose that is as far as she could go in opposing the opposition of those on Labour’s Front Bench to sustaining those jobs as we go through the transition. Those jobs and that skillset will be required for the transition. If we pull them and say that there will be no new licences or  investment in the North sea, those jobs will disappear or simply go abroad, and that makes no sense. Along with Michael Lewis of Uniper, I co-chair the Green Jobs Delivery Group, and we will be coming forward with a green jobs plan in the first half of next year. It is a transition, and as the hon. Lady will know, if she can persuade those on her Front Bench to get off their ideological opposition to something that is fundamental to the delivery of the transition, as well as maintaining our energy security today, I am fully behind her.

Tobias Ellwood: I, too, was at COP28, and I congratulate the UAE on what we have all been achieving there. The Minister is right to underline what Britain has done in moving from 7% to half of our energy requirements coming from renewables. He is also right to say that we are still behind the curve. We punched through a 1.5°C increase from pre-industrial levels in July this year, and climate change will soon overtake human conflict as a cause of loss of life. We are familiar with the long-term targets of 2030 and 2050 that the Minister has mentioned, but they are a long way off. Would it be wise to start introducing annual targets —a yearly roadmap—so that we can see incrementally how we will meet those long-term objectives?

Graham Stuart: Interestingly, my right hon. Friend takes us back to the days before the Climate Change Act 2008 when, if I remember correctly, Friends of the Earth was arguing for annual targets, and that was the Conservative party position. Once the Labour Government agreed to take the legislation forward, they realised, as did the civil servants involved, that there needs to be a period over which these things can be balanced out. I think their thinking was right and that the five-year carbon budgets were right. We do provide an annual report on our performance to date, but overall we have to allow for things such as the pandemic and all sorts of crises that come along. I think the architecture was right—I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North and his Government at the time—and it has withstood the test of time.

Matthew Pennycook: As we have heard, the global stocktake decision text that was agreed in Dubai commits the parties to transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems. Can I press the Minister to clarify what the Government believe the implications of that aspect of the agreement are for the UK? Will it mean that the UK Government now have to accelerate action to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels in what remains of this decade? If so, what new measures will be needed? If not, are the Government really saying that the COP28 agreement changes nothing for the UK when it comes to fossil fuel usage?

Graham Stuart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which is a good one. Our nationally determined contribution and emissions promise for 2030 is for a 68% cut from the 1990 basis—far more than any of our peers. We can be proud of that. It was set precisely because it was, on the advice of the Climate Change Committee, aligned with a pathway to net zero 2050. None the less, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we keep our policies under review, and as that committee   pointed out this year, there are still gaps that need to be made up to ensure we deliver on that. We have always managed to do so before, and I am confident we will do so again. He is right to say that we should continually look at our policies to ensure that they keep us there, whether or not that deals specifically with fossil fuels. We are trying to move to zero-emission vehicles. Today we have made an announcement on hydrogen, with 11 projects being funded to produce green hydrogen around the country. We are, step by step, across the piece, putting in place the required policies. That means doing everything within the window to keep ourselves in our world-leading position, which is cutting emissions more than any other major economy.

Luke Evans: May I build on the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), and congratulate the UK Government on signing the statement on civil nuclear fuel co-operation with the United States, Canada, France and Japan? That statement to secure supply chains, particularly of uranium, is so important, and the Government-led $4.2 billion of external investment will go a long way to securing our energy side when we need an energy mix. Does the Minister agree that that is exactly what the UK needs, not only for its energy security, but to meet its net zero targets?

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend, as always, is well informed and insightful. We were pleased, along with 21 other countries, to join NetZero Nuclear, because nuclear has such an important part to play. As I said in a previous answer, we need literally everything, and we are pushing the envelope across the piece. By doing so, we are developing technological solutions that will not only serve our needs, but can be exported around the world for many years to come.

Anna McMorrin: The Minister is right that COP is about people and relationships. I was also at COP, and heard first hand what country representatives were saying about the recent actions and messages coming from this Government, in stark contrast to some of what he is saying today. The Prime Minister has spent recent months wrongly telling the country that net zero is a huge burden, rather than the economic opportunity of the 21st century. How can he as a Minister go to developing countries saying that they must seize these opportunities provided by net zero, given his Prime Minister’s message at home?

Graham Stuart: As delightful and pleasant as the hon. Lady is outside the Chamber, she is always challenging within it. The Prime Minister remains committed. He has insisted on our commitment to net zero and our 2030 nationally determined contribution, while ensuring that we carry people with us. He was delighted to announce £1.6 billion of UK funding for new climate projects while at COP, including £887.8 million of new and additional financing, with other announcements focused on driving forward climate action on forests, finance and net zero transitions. This Government are walking the walk while ensuring and making no apology for the fact that we seek to maintain the national consensus and carry people up and down the country with us as we continue to lead. [Interruption.] The right  hon. Member for Doncaster North insists on giggling, but we are leading in the way his Government singly failed to do before 2010.

Andrew Gwynne: May I start by thanking the Minister? Politics aside, there is much we can all agree on in the deal at COP. I would like to see us go further in some areas, but I recognise that we have to build a coalition, and I thank him for the work he has done. However, it is about not just what we do, but what we say and how we say it.
Following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), the way that the Prime Minister recalibrated the Government’s policy in this area had the opposite effect to the one we all would like to have seen. We got the following headlines: “Sunak’s U-turns make net zero harder” in The Guardian; “Could Rishi Sunak’s green review threaten UK net zero?” on the BBC; “Sunak’s net zero backsliding ‘deeply damaging’ for Britain” in The Daily Telegraph; and “Climate tech backers slam Rishi Sunak net zero retreat” in the Evening Standard. Does the Minister not get that these messages are heard across the globe? Will he go back to No. 10 and ask the Prime Minister to be just a bit more careful in his language and how he says things so that we can get net zero over the line?

Graham Stuart: In maintaining the public commitment to net zero, it was important to say to people in my rural east Yorkshire constituency, for example, who are off the gas grid and fearful concerning heat pumps, that they would not see their boilers ripped out when they did not think there was an affordable and deliverable alternative. As the Prime Minister announced, we combined that with a 50% increase in the heat pump subsidy level to £7,500, and we saw a tripling of interest in the following week. Words do matter, but there are many constituencies to talk to. I look to the hon. Gentleman to help provide the proper balanced and nuanced view. This country has cut its emissions more than any other major economy on earth and we have more ambitious plans going forward. The Prime Minister is behind net zero. We must have a balanced discussion to show that we are not inflexible. We are prepared to work with people and ensure we do it in the right way.

Florence Eshalomi: The Minister said that we have to ensure we are not inflexible. The reality is that a number of the policies and issues we are discussing will have an impact on the next generation and the one after that. Whenever I go into schools in my constituency, the young people raise climate change with me. The reality is that climate change is harming children’s rights and access to food, water, healthcare and education. Does the Minister agree with UNICEF on the need to build towards a climate change action plan for children and young people by calling for an expert dialogue on children and climate change to be held mid-year at the session of the subsidiary bodies  in 2024?

Graham Stuart: The hon. Lady is right to highlight children, who will inherit the planet we leave behind. In the meantime, they are peculiarly vulnerable to the negative impacts we are already seeing this year, let alone those we will see if we get to 1.5°C or beyond.  She is right to highlight that. I cannot comment on the  specific question she raises, but I will make sure that it is heard on the Treasury Bench and let her know as and when a decision is made by the Government. She is right to say that, just as we must ensure that the voices of the small Pacific island states and others are heard, because they are so much on the frontline, the voice of youth must be heard. I was pleased to meet youth representatives at COP28. We must ensure that we look to the people who will inherit the policies that we of a slightly greater age make in this Chamber.

Jamie Stone: I dare say that it might seem slightly implausible to people here in the Chamber when I say that I worked in oil fabrication, but I did, and the yard where I worked built some of the mightiest structures in the North sea today. What the Minister says about transitioning and redeploying skills is music to my ears and those of my electorate. I long to see the day when offshore wind structures are fabricated in the Nigg yard. However, there is a problem, which is that since the auction, some costs have risen by almost 40%. I suspect that the incentives will not be sufficient to get the industry to where we want it to be to make these things happen. Does the Minister recognise that, and does he have any thoughts as to how it might be addressed?

Graham Stuart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, which, as ever, is well informed and extremely reasonable. He is absolutely right. I visited the port of Nigg. I was interested to see nascent floating offshore wind work, fixed-bed offshore wind work and oil and gas work, and I wandered into a hall where they were making a large and sophisticated piece for Hinkley Point C, extraordinarily. That was all at Nigg.
The hon. Gentleman gets to the point about financing and whether the auction, which has been brilliant at lowering prices, has in fact helped drive too much of the industry out of this country. Behind the day job of transforming our generation, my passion will be to see how, without following some others with WTO-breaching   local clauses, we can nudge and support more industry here. That is why we are bringing in sustainable industry rewards—non-price factors, in the jargon. We expect those to come in from allocation round 7 onwards as we work to make sure that we look after consumers first, while not missing any opportunity to utilise, maintain and grow jobs here. On offshore wind alone, our expectation—this is what the industry says—is that we will go from around 30,000 jobs in the industry today to more than 100,000 in the next six years. One of our biggest challenges is finding those people, training them and making sure we are ready to deliver them, as much as it is having more done here.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister very much for the positives in his statement and the significant targets that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is setting to achieve our goals. Some of the figures he has referred to are encouraging. I wholeheartedly support help for poor countries, as he will be aware. Will he outline the parameters of the loss and hardship fund that has been mentioned as they pertain to ensuring that the fulfilment of human rights obligations is in the requirements for any award?

Graham Stuart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his as ever gracious question. One of our disappointments—there were things we were disappointed with in the UAE consensus—was the watering down of elements we would have liked to see on human rights. He is right to highlight that. We have always wanted loss and damage to focus on the most vulnerable. The least financeable of all are people in an already parlous economic position, often at low scale, who are under threat from climate change. We hope that the funding that has been created for loss and damage can complement adaptation funding as well as mitigation work, and have climate justice at its heart. We have to look after the weakest and poorest on the planet. However unsympathetic the science, we have to ensure that policy recognises the realities for people all over the world.

Citizens’ Rights

Leo Docherty: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the 2021 and 2022 annual reports by the Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements and by the European Commission, on the implementation and application of citizens’ rights.
The overall picture on citizens’ rights is very positive. Both the UK Government and the EU have worked to uphold our obligations under the withdrawal agreement. We maintain a constructive dialogue and remain committed to upholding the rights of withdrawal agreement beneficiaries and their eligible family members.
We acknowledge that a very small number of beneficiaries have encountered issues: from the roughly 5.7 million EU-citizen withdrawal agreement beneficiaries—EU citizens living in the UK—the IMA received 237 complaints in 2021, and 209 in 2022. From the estimated 1.4 million UK-national withdrawal agreement beneficiaries living in the EU, the Commission received 40 complaints in 2021, and 30 in 2022.
The UK Government continue to press the EU for concrete action to rectify those issues affecting UK nationals. In contrast to the extensive data that the UK publishes on the EU settlement scheme, we do not have consistent and detailed statistics on all member states’ residence schemes. As a result, we continue to encourage our friends across member states to publish similarly detailed data.
The IMA is a body established by the EU withdrawal agreement and a parallel agreement with non-EU European economic area states. It exists to monitor and promote the implementation and application of the citizens’ rights parts of those agreements in the UK, and it is required to produce annual reports on implementation and application for the specialised committee on citizens’ rights. It has published two reports so far: the first in June 2022 and the second in June 2023. The European Commission also has an obligation to publish an annual report on implementation and application, and it published its second report earlier this month.
The IMA reports set out the scope of the IMA’s powers, including the power to receive complaints, conduct inquiries and take legal action. They contain information on the measures taken by the UK to implement its citizens’ rights obligations. They also set out the IMA’s activities, including legislation, monitoring and litigation, early case resolutions, and decisions to take no further action where there is insufficient evidence of a breach. In 2021, where the IMA was notified of issues, they related primarily to access to healthcare and benefits, living in the UK and Gibraltar, entry to the UK, and housing. There were fewer issues in 2022, and they related primarily to the right to reside. In both years, the UK Government, the devolved Administrations and the Government of Gibraltar worked with the IMA to provide figures and information.
The UK has taken a generous and pragmatic approach to EEA citizens in the UK through the EU settlement scheme. As of 30 September 2023, there were nearly 7.6 million applications to the scheme, with an estimated 5.7 million people having obtained status. The Home Office continues  to receive and process more than 1,000 applications every day, on average. There remains a wide range of support available for applicants, including the grant-funded network of organisations across the UK that have helped more than half a million vulnerable people apply to the scheme. Further support is available through the resolution centre, which provides telephone and email assistance to applicants, and We Are Digital, which provides support for applicants completing the online application process. The Government are committed to working with the IMA to resolve issues as they arise, and we will continue to update our guidance where necessary.
The European Commission’s reports set out the Commission’s duties and responsibilities in the application of part 2 of the withdrawal agreement, including measures to comply with the agreement at both EU and member-state level; the Commission’s approach to enforcement of the withdrawal agreement, including its exchanges with member states and complaints; and how the Commission responded to issues raised by UK nationals. Of the issues raised with the Commission in 2021, most related to residence rights or residence documents, and others concerned travel and border crossing, equal treatment, access to employment, and education and training. The 2022 report shows that most issues raised by UK nationals that year also related to residence rights, particularly refusals of applications to a member state’s residence scheme. A smaller number of complaints related to travel and border crossing. UK nationals can seek redress at national level and report breaches of their rights to the European Commission.
We are pleased that the Commission’s annual reports provide some statistics on UK nationals’ residence applications in most member states, but we continue to call for comprehensive data on residence from every member state. It is not acceptable that data is missing from certain states, particularly when contrasted with our own extensive data on the EU settlement scheme, which we publish quarterly. We also urge the Commission to provide further details on how complaints by UK nationals are handled, and how the complaints procedure is advertised to UK nationals in the EU. We continue to hold the Commission and member states to account for the correct implementation and application of part 2 of the withdrawal agreement.
Overall, we are satisfied that most UK nationals in the EU can access their rights under the withdrawal agreement, but there are some issues affecting a small number of individuals. We currently have two main concerns. The first relates to UK nationals’ ability to evidence their permanent residency rights in certain member states where challenges exist in securing residency cards. The second is to ensure that the rights of joining family members are protected. That means making sure that member states correctly apply the family reunification provisions of the withdrawal agreement—for example, that family members can access visas free of charge, and that sufficient guidance exists for joining family members to enable practical access to rights. We are working to ensure that UK-national withdrawal agreement beneficiaries have the same rights as EU nationals when buying property. We also continue to work with the EU Commission and member states to ensure that the withdrawal agreement rights of international workers are protected.
In conclusion, I want to underline the importance that the UK Government place on upholding citizens’ rights. We are committed to ensuring that both the UK and the EU fulfil their obligations under the withdrawal agreement, and we continue to work very closely with the Commission, the IMA and civil society groups to achieve that. I commend the statement to the House.

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow Minister.

Stephen Doughty: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. We welcome engagement between the Government and the European Union on these issues. Maintaining an open, constructive and consistent dialogue is critical to the mutual welfare and rights of all those affected by the withdrawal agreement. We also welcome the work of the Independent Monitoring Authority, the specialised committee and bodies such as the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly.
We will always stand up for the rights of the British in Europe, but we recognise that these issues must be addressed in a spirit of mutual and constructive co-operation. As the Minister outlined, the joint statements made in the light of the specialised committee on citizens’ rights appear to show important progress. Fewer issues relating to healthcare, benefits and housing were relayed to the IMA in 2022 than in 2021, but it is clear that some challenges persist. The Minister has outlined a number of those, and we need to work pragmatically and constructively to address them. One of the issues that he mentioned is whether data is fit for purpose. There is not consistency in the data provided by individual countries—it is incomplete and variable. I hope the Minister can say a little more about what he is doing with his European Union counterparts about the data missing from certain member states, in order to achieve baseline parity.
It has also been relayed to Labour that there are continuing problems with the process of issuing residence cards—an example often cited is Portugal. I understand that that process is now under way, but problems are being reported with family reunification, as people struggle to obtain appointments and QR codes. We have also heard about problems with payment systems and delays in printing and issuing cards, which can have an impact on other rights under the withdrawal agreement. What discussions has the Minister had about that?
Concerns have also been raised about the number of refusals in a number of member states and the varying approach to late applications across many countries. British in Europe, an important advocacy group on behalf of citizens, has stated that late applications and the prevalence of refusals are causing consternation and anxiety for many. There is also concern about the lack of communication and information on these issues. Concerns have been raised in the past in relation to Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Belgium, although again the situation has improved, for example with the Danish Government’s decision to extend the deadline for British citizens to apply for status to the end of 2023. Can the Minister update us on the concerns raised in that regard?
Particular concerns were raised about the situation in Sweden, where the refusal rate and the order to leave are statistically higher than in equivalent countries. I have  heard some very concerning cases, including one relating to an elderly lady with dementia. Again, can the Minister say what discussions he has had specifically with the Swedish Government on those issues and what he is doing to improve communication with British citizens?
There are concerns about absences and the impact on ordinary and permanent residents. We need a clear statement from the European Commission on the position in the light of recent legal cases. There are concerns about fees. For example, I understand that citizens are being charged €200 to upgrade their status in countries such as Latvia. There are also concerns about cases—thankfully, a very small number of cases—where families have unfortunately been split up due to inconsistencies. Does the Minister have an assessment of how many cases there are in that regard?
Many citizens affected are raising questions about equal treatment and non-discrimination under articles 12 and 23 of the withdrawal agreement. Can the Minister say a little about how we are ensuring equality of treatment in all areas—tax, property, school and university access, health access and so on?
Finally, there is a more general issue about where UK citizens turn when they need advice on enforcing their withdrawal agreement rights—there is a lack of specialised lawyers in this area—and about funding for advice and advocacy services, although I recognise the importance of the work being done by schemes such as Your Europe Advice.
We also need clarity on how we are addressing the concerns of EU citizens here, many of whom have lived here for decades, have contributed and paid taxes, have marriages and children, and so on. The Minister outlined the number of people who have applied to the EU settlement scheme. Where are we on the progress on determining remaining cases and making determinations? We are aware that the scheme has faced serious issues, with hundreds of thousands of late applications, long delays on decisions, delays for those with pre-settled status, and a lack of clarity on their move to settled status. EU citizens over here also deserve clarity and certainty over their status and that of their loved ones. It is vital that the Home Office addresses those concerns, so I wonder if the Minister could update us on what conversations he has had with his colleagues in the Home Office.
One issue that is often raised with us is school trips. How can we address some of the problems that have emerged and may emerge around that important contact between our countries?
Finally, reconnecting Britain starts with Europe. They are our neighbours, partners and allies, and a Labour Government would prioritise building a new ambitious partnership with the EU and European member states. We will not rejoin the EU, the single market or the customs union, or return to freedom of movement, but it is in our mutual benefit to ensure tangible improvements in the experience of citizens on both sides under the withdrawal agreement, recognising the depth of our people-to-people connections.

Leo Docherty: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions and for his warm endorsement of a statement that, I think, reflects the overwhelming success of the scheme on both sides. He made a welcome  reference to the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, which I was pleased to address last week in Parliament. That shows the practical utility of the exchanges between parliamentarians, both from the EU and the UK, and how they can serve as an important platform for an exchange of views. The warm tone of that meeting reflected the health and positivity of the relationship.
There are, of course, some challenges. The hon. Gentleman asked a good question about data. We do need consistency across member states and we continue to work both with the Commission and bilaterally to encourage greater granularity in the data coming from member states. Bilateral work continues, for example on the issuing of residence rights. It is a particular issue in Portugal, but we have been very grateful to the Portuguese Government for their positive approach. We have raised it at the highest level and we continue to do so. The Foreign Secretary discussed these issues with Vice-President Šefčovič very recently. When I travel as a Minister, I am constantly engaged with these sorts of citizens’ rights  as a routine part of my engagement across European capitals.
The hon. Gentleman asked a very good question about Sweden and Denmark. We continue to work bilaterally to resolve those specific issues. He asked a specific question about fees in Latvia. I will write to him on that and on his question about the number of family members involved in cases that are yet to have a satisfactory outcome.
The hon. Gentleman asked a very good question on where people should turn when they need help. In the first instance they should access help online, whether through the Independent Monitoring Authority in the UK or by approaching the EU Commission if an individual is resident in the EU. We have a very wide and comprehensive consular network in British missions right across Europe, with expertise that is deployable to help those concerned. I was very pleased to meet the group he mentioned, British in Europe. I had expansive discussions with that group, which does a terrific job of making British residents in Europe aware of the help available to them.
The hon. Gentleman asked a good question about the duration of a determination. Clearly, the Home Office is doing a terrific job in driving forward a high volume of applications. It is receiving and processing 1,000 cases per day. My understanding is that the average processing time is six months, but we should be very clear that no individual will ever miss out due to any kind of timeline. No one’s fundamental rights will be undermined. Settled status is guaranteed whether or not a certain timeline has been missed, and that was the basis of the recent extension.
In conclusion, the hon. Gentleman was right to point out that we are neighbours, partners and friends to the European Commission and to the member states. That warm tone and collaborative working dictates everything we do on citizens’ rights and beyond.

Robin Walker: Having spent two and a half years negotiating the citizens’ rights agreement and updating the House on it, I am very pleased with the full statement my hon. Friend has just delivered and the conclusion that the overall picture is a  very positive one, which is reflected in the numbers and in the dwindling number of issues being raised on both sides. Can he reassure me, however, that where issues are raised they go right to the top of Government—the Foreign Secretary’s bilateral conversations with members states—and that we are raising the issues with the consistency of data, because it is important to get the right arrangements for our citizens living in the EU?

Leo Docherty: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. His moment has come! The House should be grateful for his tremendous work in the days of the Department for Exiting the European Union, in which he served very ably for an extremely long time. The fact that citizens’ rights are in good shape is in no small part down to his setting up of the scheme. He is right to ask whether issues go right to the top. We make representations at the highest level—the Foreign Secretary discussed citizens’ rights with Vice-President Šefčovič very recently—so it has the full attention of ministerial and official effort.

Brendan O'Hara: I thank the Minister for prior sight of his statement. I, too, am pleased that both sides appear to be working constructively to uphold the obligations laid out in the withdrawal agreement.
As we have heard, however, the situation remains far from ideal for many, including EU citizens living in the UK. I understand that during the meeting held earlier this month, the EU raised again the lack of clarity for EU citizens who hold new UK residence status, questioning whether their rights were guaranteed by the withdrawal agreement, or solely by domestic law. Perhaps the Minister could confirm whether it is the former or the latter.
The Minister spoke of his concern about UK nationals in the EU being unable to evidence their permanent residence rights in certain member states. I agree that that must be a huge concern for those involved, but it is also the case that 6 million EU citizens in the UK have digital-only immigration status. Given the long experience of the Home Office having a less than perfect track record of file maintenance, will the Government do something now about providing EU citizens with a physical back-up to confirm their immigration status?
There is also concern around those to who have been granted pre-settled status but who do not yet have, or who cannot evidence, five years of continuous residence. With 3,500 universal credit applications refused, the right to reside requirement appears to be almost a hidden form of no recourse to public funds. Would it not be far better to strengthen the bonds between the UK and the European Union by recognising EU citizens’ rights with access to social security?
Finally, can the Minister tell us what EU member states thought about the new salary threshold, which means that British citizens will be unable to live legally in the UK with spouses from EU member states? Did they see that as maintaining the constructive dialogue and remaining committed to upholding the rights of beneficiaries and their eligible family members, as the Minister suggested?

Leo Docherty: The hon. Gentleman asked about the route via which rights were applied. The withdrawal agreement guarantees the rights of those joining family  members with settled status, and no one’s rights will be undermined by any other factor. He then asked about digital status. We live in a digital age, and this is overwhelmingly the convenient and efficient means of providing documents, but should individuals struggle with the digital means, a dedicated resolution centre is available, so there is recourse to assistance for the more analogue-minded individuals who might need it.
Of course access will continue. As we have seen—and I noted the numbers in the statement—the volume of applications reflects the fact that a large number of EU citizens are still coming to the UK to join family members under the arrangements set up by the withdrawal agreement. That, I think, is a positive reflection of the success of the scheme, and also of the fact that those people are attracted to live and work in the UK.
The hon. Gentleman invited me to go beyond the scope of the statement by commenting on the salary threshold. I will not accept that invitation, but I will say that I think there is a warm realisation between the UK and member states and the Commission that the withdrawal agreement is working well. Citizens’ rights are overwhelmingly in good shape, and there is that warm positivity between the UK, the Commission and member states to ensure that we get this right.

Sara Britcliffe: I thank the Minister for his statement. Can he assure me that, as he continues to monitor changes in the law with EU member states, he stands ready to inform British nationals of any changes that are to be made? Will he say how that would be done?

Leo Docherty: We do stand ready. That information will primarily be sent out via our extensive consular network for UK nationals living in the EU—my hon. Friend will know that there are more than 400,000 in Spain, for example. We will use our consular network and our deep connections with local communities to ensure that those residents are kept up to date.

Jamie Stone: Perhaps, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the spirit of the festive season, I might be allowed a slightly rambling question, having been inspired by the Minister’s mention of border crossings and travel.
In my student days, I went backpacking and interrailing around Europe. I discovered that a kilt would get you a free drink in some very surprising places. Indeed, I overdid it once in Munich, but we will not go into that. [Laughter.] I assume that before he joined the Foot Guards, the Minister will have done something similar—or perhaps that did not become a guardsman; I do not know.
I want to explore the Minister’s thinking. It strikes me that the ability of youngsters to travel around Europe and meet other Europeans, learning their languages and learning about their cultures, has been a tremendous exercise in peacemaking and understanding for the whole of Europe. Does the Minister see that as something important that we should try to continue and to accomplish in the future?

Leo Docherty: Of course the hon. Gentleman is right. We acknowledge that the ability of young people to travel and experience foreign cultures and education in different languages is hugely important, and we are doing all we can to ensure that the same volume of schoolchildren from the European continent are able to access that by spending time in the UK. We are open to discussions about a more sustained mechanism for ensuring that young people from Europe can always study in the UK, because that is very important.
The hon. Gentleman reflected pertinently on his personal experiences of travel in Europe. The House is grateful for that. It is, of course, a matter of grave regret to me that the Foot Guards do not wear kilts.

Rosie Winterton: Well, there is food for thought. I thank the Minister for his statement.

Human Trafficking

Home Affairs Committee

Select Committee statement

Rosie Winterton: We come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Home Affairs Committee. Dame Diana Johnson will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches. I should also emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, not to the relevant Minister, and that Front Benchers may take part in questioning.

Diana R. Johnson: Let me start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting this time for a debate on the report from the Home Affairs Select Committee on human trafficking, the first report of the 2023-24 Session. Let me also thank and pay tribute to the courage and bravery of the survivors who shared their views and experiences with us as part of the inquiry, and express my gratitude to the Committee Clerks, staff and advisers who provided such excellent support.
This report puts paid to the idea that the UK is still a world leader in combating human trafficking. It is not. A preoccupation with small boat crossings and the Rwanda scheme has seen the Government divert their focus and resources away from combating human trafficking. The post of Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner was vacant for 18 months. The Home Office has not published its annual report on human trafficking for two years, and it has taken the Department two years to launch the new stakeholder groups to engage with anti-trafficking non-governmental organisations. The consequences of such de-prioritisation and delays are disastrous for this country’s response to human trafficking, undermining our ability to prevent exploitation, prosecute perpetrators and protect victims.
Let me begin with prevention. Let us be clear: human trafficking will continue to be attractive and extremely profitable to criminals unless more is done to tackle the demand for the criminality that it services. For example, there is currently too little deterrence for men who pay for sex, and that creates a market for trafficking for sexual exploitation. Indeed, the Government’s modern slavery strategy includes just two references to the need to “reduce demand”, and neither relates to sexual exploitation.
Law enforcement action against individuals who fuel the demand for sexual exploitation and who directly abuse victims has also been woeful. Section 53A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which is headed “Paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force etc.”, describes a strict liability offence. However, between 2013 and 2020, just three individuals were convicted under section 53A, and the maximum penalty applied was a fine of no more than £100. We think that the law should be strengthened and penalties increased to ensure comparability with other sexual and trafficking offences,   and to increase the deterrent value. There should also be much greater use of section 53A by police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service.
The Committee found that websites advertising prostitution enable and profit from such exploitation without even minimal safeguards on those platforms. We were deeply concerned by the decision of the National Crime Agency and the Home Office to work with these websites, given that there is no evidence that that has led to a reduction in human trafficking on them. Websites are directly fuelling sex trafficking across the UK, and causing unimaginable harm to victims. We therefore call on the Government to make it an offence for any individual or company to enable or profit from the prostitution of another person, including the facilitation that takes place via websites.
Let me now turn to the subject of prosecution. The national referral system is the UK’s national framework for identifying and supporting victims of modern slavery, including human trafficking. The high number of referrals to the NRM, totalling 16,938 in 2022, highlights the scope of exploitation in the UK, but the CPS received only 286 referrals of human trafficking cases in 2022, which resulted in just 405 people being prosecuted. We were very concerned at the disparity in those figures, particularly as we heard during our inquiry that the number of referrals to the NRM is almost certainly not a true reflection of the number of victims.
In accordance with the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice for investigation, all suspected modern slavery offences are to be treated as serious crimes. Additionally, human trafficking and modern slavery have been identified by the National Crime Agency as a national priority threat, yet Dame Sara Thornton, the previous Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, told us that the low prosecution rates are due to the level of priority and resources, including expert teams, that police forces have applied.
To increase the number of prosecutions, there must be additional training for law enforcement. Police and crime commissioners should consider setting modern slavery and human trafficking as a priority in their police and crime plans, and there must be more use of evidence-led investigations. We would also tell law enforcement to follow the money, as there are clear links with money laundering and other criminal activity.
Crucially, we say that victim support must be at the centre of the investigation and prosecution process. The “victim navigator” programme is working to support this, with an independent support worker working with the police to act as a trusted bridge between investigators and victims. This scheme should be expanded and used in all cases.
Finally, to hold perpetrators of human trafficking accountable, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 must be applicable to all those who perpetrate this crime. That is why we recommend that the Act’s definition of human trafficking should be amended to remove the requirement for the exploitation to have involved travel, and to clarify that the consent of the victim, in relation to either the travel or the exploitation itself, is irrelevant.
As long as the crime of human trafficking is committed, we will need to support and protect victims, but we are not getting it right here either. Right now, the NRM decision-making process is extremely slow. The average  waiting time for a conclusive grounds decision in 2022, across both competent authorities, was 543 days. This contributes to the stress, anxiety and depression of victims, who face an uncertain future. Furthermore, these delays have caused many victims to drop out of the process before it concludes, leaving them exposed to a risk of re-trafficking.
We heard how long waiting times can be particularly detrimental to British national victims, who may opt out, rather than wait in the NRM, and try to receive help and support elsewhere. The Home Office also failed to produce sufficient evidence to our inquiry to support its claims of widespread abuse of the national referral mechanism and of people trying to game the system in order to claim asylum. We recommend dealing with the backlog and reducing the number of days that NRM decisions take, and we ask the Government again to provide comprehensive data to support their claims of abuse of the NRM, if that data exists.
For some victims, the NRM is not the right support mechanism. In 2022, 41% of all referrals to the NRM were children. The Council of Europe’s expert group on human trafficking notes that, in 2019, the NRM comprised: UK nationals, 52%; Vietnamese nationals, 9%; Eritrean nationals, 6%; Albanian nationals, 6%; and Sudanese nationals, 5%. Several organisations told us that the number of children experiencing exploitation is likely to be much higher than the officially reported cases, yet the NRM is not appropriate for children. There is an urgent need for a joined-up approach to victim support that adequately addresses their needs.
We are also deeply concerned by the lack of action on missing victims of child trafficking. Measures such as devolving decision making to local authorities and providing independent child trafficking guardians to support victims are examples of schemes that can have a very positive effect but are not widely available. We are concerned that, more than two years into the pilots, we are still awaiting any evaluation. We also recommend introducing a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation. Finally, the report makes it clear that it is certainly not appropriate to accommodate children in hotels, particularly unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
I hope the report marks a turning point in the Government’s response to human trafficking. They can and must do much better. To that end, I welcome the decision by the House of Lords to appoint a special inquiry Committee on post-legislative scrutiny of the Modern Slavery Act, which will begin its work next year. I hope the recommendations and evidence base that we brought together in our report prove valuable to the Committee in its deliberations.
The Home Affairs Committee’s report offers the Government a clear road map for getting the UK’s response to human trafficking back on track. I am pleased that the Minister for Illegal Migration is on the Treasury Bench this afternoon, and I urge the Government to take heed of the recommendations.

Tim Loughton: As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I concur with everything the Chair has just said. She raised the very unsatisfactory absence of an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner for more than 18 months. Will she elaborate on our recommendation that the Committee should have a pre-appointment hearing role, as we have for certain  other positions? That might enable us to chase the Government rather more effectively on filling that role.
Secondly, the Chair said that the NRM is not appropriate for children and that the Government have been slow to roll out independent child trafficking guardians, let alone a definition of child criminal exploitation. Does she agree that this goes well beyond just trafficking? This is about child safeguarding, child welfare and children in the criminal justice system, and it really needs a joined-up approach involving several different Departments. Otherwise, these kids will end up being perpetrators rather than the victims that, in many cases, they are.

Diana R. Johnson: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who is an excellent deputy Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. His contributions are always very valuable. On children, I absolutely agree that we need a joined-up approach across Government.
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, the Committee is disappointed that it has taken so long for an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner to be appointed, but we recognise that we could play a useful role in having a pre-appointment hearing for that important role. We said in our recommendations that we would like the Government to consider that, and we look forward to seeing the new Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner at the end of January 2024, although that will be after her appointment. I hope the Government will take heed of our call for pre-appointment hearings in future.

Clive Efford: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and her Committee on this excellent report. Will she comment on the research that found that 75% of victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation are advertised online? One of these adult services websites gave evidence to the Committee that it allows
“individuals to advertise multiple people for prostitution concurrently, that age verification of individuals advertised on their site is not required, and that the same contact phone number can be used on multiple adverts.”
When I read that, I was struck that we could take simple measures to eradicate the loopholes that these websites exploit. What does my right hon. Friend think the Government should do? Does she think the Government could act quickly to deal with such issues?

Diana R. Johnson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. All the Committee’s members were shocked when we took evidence about these adult services websites—pimping websites—which are platforms used by serious organised criminals to traffic women, in the main, and advertise them completely legitimately and legally using, as my hon. Friend says, the same telephone number and often very similar advertisements. Hon. and right hon. Members should look at those adverts, as I did in my local area in Hull. I was shocked to see women advertised— “New in town”, “Only here for a week”—using very similar telephone numbers and pictures; obviously, they are being moved around the country. These are serious organised criminals who are doing this. I hope the Government will take into account what we say in our report, because when we questioned the Home Secretary at that time, she was not aware of the issue. In fact, we were concerned that the National Crime Agency and the Home Office, which have had  lots of meetings with these websites, such as Vivastreet, seem to be taking an approach that is not about the safeguarding of these women, who are obviously being raped multiple times a day through these adverts.
We also know that Vivastreet and other platforms  are making a lot of money. It is quite clear from  the evidence that we received that the Home Office acknowledges that these websites are fuelling the sexual exploitation of women and the trafficking of women into this country. If the Minister and the Government do not do anything else, I really implore them to look at that section of our report, because it is shocking. Indeed, all Members of this House would do well to have a look as well.

Simon Fell: I thank the Chair for her statement. As a member of the Committee, I found this an interesting but deeply troubling area to look into. Building on what the Chair has just said, the adult services websites are one of the most pernicious parts of our online economy, and the Home Office said that they are the “the most significant enabler” of online exploitation. We heard evidence that those that engage with law enforcement—which is not all of them, by any means—can show pitifully few results from that engagement, in terms of identifying trafficking, helping those individuals or reporting to law enforcement. Does the right hon. Member agree that one measure that we would like the Government to take is to work with the regulator to get these websites to police their own platforms and ensure that they better identify vulnerable people, but that if they fail to do so, the Government should work with the regulator to make sure they are forced to do so?

Diana R. Johnson: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who is an excellent member of the Committee. I know that we all found the session when we heard from Vivastreet to be a distressing one. He is absolutely right in his suggestions; indeed, I would go further. I am old enough to remember when there was a problem with pimps putting these little cards in phone boxes to advertise women for prostitution, but the law was changed and now that is not allowed. Offline, they cannot do that, but these adverts are still online. That needs to be addressed, and it is part of our bigger discussion about the online world. Where there is abuse and criminal activity going on, I hope that the regulators will address it. As the Minister is in his place, I hope he will also take a good look at this and see what more this House can do.

Andrew Gwynne: I, too, thank my right hon. Friend and other members of the Committee for their deliberations on this important subject. The report is very thorough. I was pleased to hear her talk about the need to support and protect victims, because these people are indeed victims of horrendous crimes. They are crimes that we thought the landmark Modern Slavery Act 2015, introduced by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), would seek to tackle, but unfortunately that has stalled. Was consideration given in my right hon. Friend’s report to the Government’s insistence on approaching this as an immigration matter and looking at it through the prism of immigration law, rather than focusing on the safeguarding of vulnerable women and children?

Diana R. Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for that question; that was an issue that concerned the Committee greatly. We felt that this area was being viewed through the prism of immigration law, when it needed to be viewed through the prism of safeguarding. We were very disappointed that it was moved from the Minister for Safeguarding in the Home Office and made the responsibility of the Immigration Minister. We did not think that that was the appropriate place for it to sit.
Just to reiterate, when we talk about trafficking, we are talking about criminal offences against the individual, whereas with immigration law we are obviously talking about an offence against the state, which is quite different. I hope that the new Minister will reflect on that, because I understand that this is listed among his responsibilities, whereas the Committee’s view is that it should move to the Minister in the Department who has responsibilities for safeguarding.

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow Minister.

Dan Jarvis: May I join others in thanking my right hon. Friend and all the other members of the Home Affairs Committee, and the Clerks and the staff, for the hard work they put into producing this important report? As the report rightly says, human trafficking is a profit-driven crime that sees innocent victims utterly exploited for financial gain. It is only by operating a zero-tolerance approach and giving our criminal justice system the expertise it needs to handle these complex cases that we will see any real change.
The report highlighted a number of important issues and some omissions in the Government’s policy, and I am keen to hear my right hon. Friend’s thoughts on those. First, it recommends that the Home Office should urgently resume the publication of its annual reports on human trafficking. This is not the first time that this issue has been raised, yet the Home Office has still not responded. Does she agree that the Government have been too slow and that, as a consequence, there is insufficient transparency about the UK’s performance in tackling human trafficking?
Secondly, the report raises the concern that, in practice, human trafficking is no longer a priority for the UK Government. That was not the case when the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was at the Home Office. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that the Government get the balance right, and that the Home Office’s current approach is letting down victims of human trafficking?
Finally, Members will be aware—it has been mentioned already—that in October the Government eventually appointed a new Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, after 18 months of the role being left empty. However, there are concerns about the Government giving this job—one previously held by experts and senior police figures—to someone without a similar level of experience as her predecessors. Does my right hon. Friend think this was a wise appointment?

Diana R. Johnson: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on the Front Bench about annual reports. We have not had one for two years. There is something  clearly wrong in the Home Office when it cannot produce an annual report of its activities. Sadly, we do think that victims are being let down. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members have referred to the fact that when the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, led the charge with the Modern Slavery Act 2015—it was her flagship piece of legislation—the UK was seen to be a world leader in this area. Sadly, over the last few years we have slipped further and further behind. Other countries are now taking on that mantle, which is a great pity and does not do justice to the right hon. Lady’s legacy.
On my hon. Friend’s final point, we were disappointed by how long it took to appoint an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and by the lack of priority given to filling that post. As I said, we had no input into that—there was no pre-appointment hearing—so we are yet to see the person who has been appointed. We are looking forward to seeing her at the end of January, and we certainly want someone who will stand up and make sure that the Government hear clearly what is and is not working in the field of modern slavery and trafficking. I am heartened to hear that the new person is talking very much about the victims and focusing on them, which is absolutely vital. However, we will see her at the end of January, and we hope that we have someone who will be a strong advocate in this area.

Michael Tomlinson: May I add my thanks to the right hon. Member and her Committee for this comprehensive report on human trafficking? We will of course consider all the recommendations and findings, and respond in the usual way. She will understand that I will refrain from giving a full answer now—not least because you told me not to, Madam Deputy Speaker—but the Government recognise the importance of this subject and will respond in due course in the usual way.
May I also thank the right hon. Member for the warm welcome she and her Committee gave me yesterday? Because you have asked me to ask a question, Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask the right hon. Member if she is looking forward to working constructively with me and my ministerial team, as I am with her and her Committee?

Diana R. Johnson: rose—

Michael Tomlinson: And she smiles.

Diana R. Johnson: Well, I smile quite a lot actually, but perhaps not as much as I would like to at the Home Affairs Committee. I thought we gave the two new Ministers a warm welcome yesterday; at times, we gave them quite a roasting, actually.
The House of Commons has given the members of the Home Affairs Committee, and myself as the Chair, the important job of scrutinising the Home Office, its policies, the way money is spent and what Ministers are doing. I take that very seriously, as do the members of the Committee. Of course we will want to work with the Minister, but we will scrutinise him and ask difficult questions. When they attend, we expect Ministers and officials to be fully briefed and to give full answers to the questions that members ask them in the role that we have been given by the House of Commons to scrutinise the Home Office.

Backbench Business

Knife crime

[Relevant Documents: e-petition 634860, Make knife crime prevention a compulsory requirement for all school curriculum; e-petition 563199, Increase sentences relating to knife crime; e-petition 300054, Introduce a minimum sentence for carrying a knife, equal to carrying a firearm.]

Wendy Morton: I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of knife crime.
It is a pleasure to be able to bring forward this important debate and I thank the Backbench Business Committee, of which I am a member, for granting it.
I know Members on both sides of House take the matter of knife crime incredibly seriously, as do the Government, and I am sure the debate will demonstrate that. I appreciate that it has felt like a very busy week and many Members are starting to think about their families, constituencies and Christmas, so I am grateful to those Members who supported my bid for the debate, especially those who are in the Chamber. On other occasions, many more people would have joined us.
It is apt that I have secured the debate today, because back home in my borough of Walsall, which is in the constituency of Aldridge-Brownhills, “The Knife Angel”, a powerful sculpture crafted from surrendered knives, is standing tall in Walsall’s Gallery Square until the end of this month. Those who have already seen it will know that it is an incredibly poignant symbol. It is symbolic of Walsall’s ongoing commitment to combating knife crime and promoting unity. This afternoon, members of the community, of all faiths and none, have been invited to come together in Walsall for a walk of peace to reflect on violence and knife crime. The event, along with “The Knife Angel”, will give Walsall residents and visitors an opportunity to pause and reflect, and it will send a powerful message from the borough to challenge and confront the consequences of knife crime.
In the year ending March 2023, there were approximately 50,500 knife crime offences in England and Wales. Sadly, data from the Office for National Statistics shows that in 2022-23 the west midlands recorded the highest rate of offences, at 178 per 100,000 of population. With a population of 2.9 million, that equates to a staggering average of 5,197 knife crime offences in the west midlands each year or 14 offences every single day.
However, it is important to remember that this issue is not just about numbers, especially where lives are lost, because behind every number there is a story, and behind every story there is a devastated, grieving family and loved ones, friends and colleagues. All too often, there is also a shocked and shaken community. I think of my own constituency, where James Brindley fell victim to an unprovoked fatal stabbing in 2017 as he walked home from a night out. His attacker was aged 17.
There are questions behind every number, and a search for the perpetrator and for answers to a life needlessly lost. My reason for securing the debate is to ask the Minister some of the questions that have been raised with me, as well as raising the questions and problems that so many, including the Government, are  seeking to tackle. I also want to highlight some important ongoing work and the fact that much more needs to be done. Identifying and tackling the root causes is crucial.
There are common themes that we cannot ignore, around demographics and socioeconomic factors, including age, race and sex. Much work and research has been done and is ongoing in that space. For example, in the year ending March 2023, across England and Wales there were 3,420 cautions and convictions for possession of a knife or offensive weapon among young people aged 10 to 17. In the west midlands, between January and September this year, 565 under-18s were arrested on suspicion of knife-related crimes. All too often, children and young people who are not engaging can be lured into street gangs, violence and, sadly, even child criminal exploitation. I spoke to the Wave Trust to get a deeper understanding of the work it does and we discussed the need for a long-term approach to tackling issues around childhood trauma and parental violence and influence.

Florence Eshalomi: The right hon. Member is making a powerful speech. On her point about child criminal exploitation, she will be aware that I chair the all-party parliamentary group on child criminal exploitation and knife crime and that we made the decision to change the name of that APPG. Does she recognise that a number of groups, including the Wave Trust, have been calling for a statutory definition of CCE?

Wendy Morton: The hon. Lady should be applauded for her work and the work of the APPG that she chairs. I am conscious of that call for action, to which I hope the Minister will respond.
We recognise that work on knife crime cuts across several Government Departments, including the Department for Education, the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Home Office. I appreciate that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) is now a Minister in the Home Office, but I am sure he will do his best to address a range of issues while recognising that they have implications across Government.
Typically, 90% of attackers and victims are male. In London, 90% of knife crime offenders were male, and across England and Wales 91% of people admitted to hospital for assault by sharp objects were male. Low socioeconomic backgrounds are a factor too. A YouGov poll, commissioned by Barnardo’s, found one in five parents said that they will struggle to have time off work to spend with their children, meaning children are often left unsupervised. What concerns me most is when I hear young people say they carry a knife to make them feel safe. Surely, that has to be changed.
In 2018, the Government published a serious violence strategy to look at the root causes of the problem and how to support young people to lead lives away from violence. It was described at the time as taking a public health approach to serious violence, and various funds and programmes were set up, such as the Youth Endowment Fund and violence reduction units. Will the Minister update us on what his Department is doing to go further, working multi-agency with partners and community organisations on a number of levels?
This issue is also recognised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb). She cannot be in the Chamber today, but she often speaks on the topic of knife crime. I wish to highlight to the Minister the first knife summit that she held recently, which joined together local community organisations, the police and the Midlands Air Ambulance Charity to discuss the need for a whole-community approach.
In August, the Home Office made a very welcome announcement on the banning of machetes and Zombie-style knives. It also said that the police were to be given new powers to seize and destroy any weapon that they find. I, along with others, will continue to call for that to happen and I look forward to seeing the necessary legislation pass through this place—I believe that it is coming in the Criminal Justice Bill, but perhaps the Minister can confirm that. Locally to me in the west midlands, the Express & Star newspaper has been actively campaigning on the issue, too. We need to see that legislation in place sooner rather than later.
In addition to the work of Ministers and the Government, it is important that we recognise and reinforce other routes to tackling this problem. For example, in Aldridge, following the tragic death of their beloved son, Mark and Beverley Brindley set up the Brindley Foundation to bring about positive social change and to reduce youth violence. Their campaign includes LifeOrKnife and the setting up of 12 knife amnesty bins across Walsall Borough for people to throw away their knives anonymously. Recognising that young people need support and that they need to be part of the solution includes education, mentoring and training. The Brindley Foundation initiative also has support from local businesses.
Another way would be to look at relationship, health and sex education in our schools so that children can learn about positive change and consequential thinking. I urge the Government to look again at this, because currently there is no national programme of education for children and young people and no targeted guidelines in the curriculum for such behaviours or prevention.

Louie French: My right hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech on the importance of the whole community approach to this matter. Will she also join me in thanking the Mizen Foundation, which was set up by a family in Sidcup? Following their own grief from the death of their son, the family go in and out of schools across the country, encouraging that positive change in behaviour.

Wendy Morton: Absolutely, I commend the work that the family do. Yet again, it is a poignant example of how, when tragedy hits, so many families seek to find answers and ways to help themselves deal with the loss of a loved one through helping others. I absolutely recognise the work that they do.
A petition to make knife crime prevention a compulsory requirement on the school curriculum has attracted more than 10,000 signatures. Locally in Walsall, our Conservative councillors are also working hard with partners to tackle knife crime, recognising the need for a broad and holistic approach. Central to that is the need for a partnership between police and crime commissioners, local authorities and the third sector. I am pleased and proud that Walsall Borough Council,  under the stewardship of Garry Perry, one of my local councillors, is working closely with the third sector and with organisations such as the Brindley Foundation to ensure that this issue receives the attention and prominence that it deserves.
Political leadership matters, too. Sadly, I do not always feel that we are seeing enough of that in the west midlands, where we have some of the highest rates of knife crime. There is often a void when it comes to working with local authorities and the third sector across the whole region. I am pleased to see the role of PCC being rolled into that of the West Midlands Mayor. This creates an excellent opportunity to bring together strong political leadership with—and this is important—a targeted and effective use of resources.
The first knife bin was rolled out in Aldridge, and Mayor Andy Street joined us that day, recognising the need both for a holistic approach, and for us to stand together, shoulder to shoulder, to rise to the challenge of tackling the problem. He also vowed to put a stop to plans to close 30 police stations across the region, including my own in Aldridge, which is also an important part of the solution.
Another area that I would like the Minister to consider, perhaps with his colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, is the role of licensing committees. I have seen examples where those committees need to work better and more effectively with the local police, for instance, when it comes to requests for curfews as a method of public protection in town centres with challenging night-time economies. The installation and enforcement of knife arches in night clubs and the provision of bleed kits are practical measures that could and should be mandated for specific venues, and I would like to hear the Minister’s views on that as well.
At this point, I would like to mention and pay tribute to those at The Queens pub in Pelsall. Back in January, they began fundraising for a defibrillator and a bleed kit. This autumn, after numerous raffles, a collection tin in the pub and generous support from people across the local community, both of those were installed in memory of local lad, Reagan, who, sadly, lost his life to knife crime in 2017.
As I draw my contribution to this debate to a conclusion, I wish to acknowledge the work that the Government and others are doing on this topic and the fact that they have shown themselves willing to undertake more to address the issue of heinous knife crime. I commend and welcome the actions to date, but it is clear that further action is required, and is required now, to avoid more lives simply becoming a number on a data spreadsheet, and also, importantly, to strengthen our communities. With that, I stand committed to the cause.

Florence Eshalomi: I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for sponsoring this critical debate and for her powerful opening speech. I declare an interest as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on child criminal exploitation and knife crime, which used to be called the APPG on knife crime and youth violence. Therein lies the problem: knife crime is often seen as an issue that affects just young people, but that is not the case. After I took up chairing that all-party group, with  the support of its members we changed the name to reflect the nature of the crime and the number of young people who are being coerced and criminally exploited to the point where they are carrying knives. I hope that, in his summing up, the Minister will tell us how the Government will address that.
Knife crime has gone up by more than 70% in eight years, and the devastating impacts of this rise are being felt right across the country. My constituency of Vauxhall, just across the bridge from here, lies in the borough of Lambeth. Sadly, we saw more than 700 cases of knife crime in Lambeth in just one year alone, and over 200 of those cases caused horrific injury. It is important to offer some of the cases behind those statistics to understand the complexity of the trauma of knife crime.
In the summer, two men were victims of a suspected homophobic knife attack outside the Two Brewers in Clapham. Thankfully, the two victims were discharged from hospital shortly afterwards, but this attack was highly disturbing to many people in the LGBTQ+ community in Clapham and across London. Although serious injury and physical trauma were avoided, there was a huge amount of emotional and mental trauma attached to those attacks, and we must acknowledge that when we talk about knife crime. As the right hon. Lady said, we also have to consider the impact that it has on communities, the potential that it has to amplify violence against marginalised groups and the general fear that that can create.
There was another case in my constituency, very close to my church, very close to my old primary school and very close to where I used to live. On 1 May, in broad daylight, 31-year-old Johanita Dogbey was stabbed from behind by someone who was unknown to her. Since then, her family have been dealing with the devastating impact of losing their daughter, while fighting for justice and waiting for justice to come. I have referred to this before, but when you sit with grieving families in their front room, and you look at the pain and despair in their eyes, and glance over their shoulders and see the smiling, happy pictures, you just think, “Why?” Nothing can prepare you for that in this role. It is one of the hardest things that a number of us have had to do as elected representatives.
Every time I hear about another stabbing, or get a text from the police or an email update, I just think, “I  hope this isn’t fatal.” Johanita’s death will leave a hole in the hearts of her family, but there must be support to deal with the personal trauma of such cases. The two cases that I have referenced show the diversity of the impact of knife crime. It creates trauma, worry and violence, but we must understand that the trauma will function differently in virtually all the different knife attacks that we have seen, not just in Lambeth but across the country.
We all recognise that dealing with knife crime cannot be party political. Every day, another community and family have to bury their loved one. They do not want us to bring party politics into it. For them the pain is raw. They just want answers, and to know how we can stop people carrying knives. No one-size-fits-all policy will stop all knife crime, or manage the trauma that it creates. We have to take a holistic approach, whether that means recognising the impact of knife crime on the LGBTQ+ community when they are targeted, recognising the true shock of knife crime for families and how we  can provide support to loved ones, or recognising that we cannot fall into stereotypes about the causes, perpetrators or victims of knife crime when developing policy.
In my former role as the Assembly Member for Lambeth and Southwark, I authored a report on gang-associated girls and the impact it has on them. I was shocked to see from Metropolitan police data that just six girls and young women were identified in the Met police gangs matrix, and how limited the piecemeal provision was for helping to deal with the trauma that impacts women and girls. In our response to knife crime, we need to think a lot more about the psychological trauma, and recognise the signs of that trauma when dealing with cases—trauma from the incident, and the trauma that leads people to carry a knife in the first place.
I referred to child criminal exploitation. Childhood trauma has a specific impact from and on knife crime, and we need a specific holistic approach within our justice system to child criminal exploitation. It is painful to see children—some as young as seven—going through the criminal justice system. If we look back at the patterns, we see that those children have probably witnessed a stabbing, and have probably been coerced to carry drugs in county lines. If a child as young as 10 or 11, who should be in school in Lambeth in my constituency, has been arrested in Peterborough with a package of drugs on him, we need to ask ourselves how he got those drugs.

Wendy Morton: I think we all recognise the importance of the early years. This debate had originally been scheduled on a Thursday to follow a debate on the early years, which would have been timely. Does the hon. Member agree that it is important to recognise the link with the early years and what happens in the family, which can be so influential on children as they grow up?

Florence Eshalomi: I thank the right hon. Lady for that powerful intervention, which takes us back to childhood trauma and the childhood link. We need to start to have a holistic, wraparound approach with families and children—in some cases, those of primary school age. At the moment, a lot of support and funding is focused on secondary school children. In some cases, that is far too late; those children have been coerced to the point where they have joined gangs, and it is too late for them to turn their life around. Sadly, some of them will end up dead, so it is important that we tackle knife crime from a young age, teaching our young children about the dangers and why they should not carry a knife.
We know that some young people are scared. They are scared of the adults who are coercing them into a dangerous lifestyle. They are scared because, in some cases, they come from a dysfunctional family and their parents have broken up. They are scared because of the mental trauma from what they have witnessed. They are scared because they have received an embrace, and an older person from the gang has taken them in, as a family. These children want to be loved and to belong, yet they are belonging in the wrong place. It is important that, instead of criminalising such children—some of   them from an early age—we recognise that they are being exploited. We should have a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation.
Members of the 2019 intake celebrated four years since being elected earlier this week. In January 2020, shortly after I was elected, I referred in my maiden speech to having been one of the first people to turn up when a young boy was stabbed, just across the road from my constituency, on De Laune Street in Kennington. That late afternoon in January, I was on my way to pick up my son from nursery. My daughter was in the back of the car; I had picked her up from reception. I mention that because I did not know what had happened, but someone was slumped on the road. As I got closer in the car and pulled over, it transpired that he had been stabbed.
I mentioned in my maiden speech that people were walking past us. That was really painful, because we are allowing ourselves to become desensitised to knife crime. I do not claim to be a first aid responder or anything —I am petrified of the sight of blood—but along with another lady who came out from the block of flats, I folded up a blanket, I think it was, and stemmed the blood. The long and short of it is that the ambulance came. My frantic call to the emergency services probably did not make sense because I was just screaming, “You need to get here now!” The poor call handler would have been thinking, “What is this woman rambling on about?” I was scared. I was just thinking, “This boy is going to die.”
Thankfully, the boy did not die. We manage to stem the blood, and he was lucky. During lockdown, I received an email from his teacher, who it turned out lives in my constituency. He said, “The young boy is making a good recovery, but thank you.” I know how frightening it can be for anyone to be in that situation, but we need to look at how we can help people to have the skills and means to stem the flow of blood as quickly and effectively as possible, because every second will make such a big difference after a trauma or stabbing.
I echo what the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said: I hope that the Minister will look at raising awareness of stab kits and the first aid response to knife crime, and how to distribute more of those stab kits in shops and other areas. I hope that he will recognise the value of a number of youth organisations, not just in my constituency but across the country, that work with some of the most vulnerable children and young adults, and help them to turn their lives around. The reality is that those organisations are working on a shoestring budget. Youth services are still not deemed to be a statutory provision. In London, with the support of the Mayor of London and City Hall, there is funding for a number of youth projects, including in my Vauxhall constituency. Those youth groups make such a big difference to the value of people’s lives. For a number of young people, the intervention of those groups, and the trust that the youth workers build with them, makes the difference between that young person living or dying.
That is the power of a valuable, well-funded youth service, so I hope that the Minister will recognise that the cuts to local government have had an impact. Many youth clubs have closed. Young adults should not be able to access such provision and extra-curricular activities only if their parents, carers or grandparents can afford them; they should be available to all young people, so  that during those crucial hours between 3 pm and 7 pm after school, which is when a number of these incidents happen, our young people have something positive to be engaged in.
I will finish by saying that this year marked the 23rd anniversary of a stabbing that I think we all remember: that of Damilola Taylor on 27 November 2000. As I posted about him on the anniversary, we all remember the grainy image of the young boy skipping along outside Peckham library in the silver puffa jacket—a young life taken so tragically. I mention that case because I think it was a turning point when, no matter where people were in the country, they wanted to see an end to knife crime and an end to stabbings. It pains me that here in 2023 we can recount so many other tragic cases that have happened since that one, and we still do not have a grip on the situation. Yes, in some places the figures have gone down, but every knife crime, every stabbing that results in someone dying, every grieving family is one too far. Those families do not want to be known as a statistic; they just want us all to work in a cross-party way to address this scourge.

Rob Butler: It is genuinely a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi). She gave a powerful and thought-provoking speech; I would struggle to find anything in it that I disagreed with, and I suspect the whole House would join me in paying tribute to her for stepping in to help a victim of stabbing in her own constituency. She may well be terrified of blood, but it took real courage to be there and to provide assistance, and she has given us all an awful lot to reflect upon.
It is important to recognise that nowhere is exempt from the harm caused by knives. They are a danger in rural areas just as they are in inner cities. As you may be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, prior to my election to this House I spent many years involved in the criminal justice system, including as a non-executive director of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, as a member of the Sentencing Council, as a magistrate and as a board member of the Youth Justice Board, and it is the young whom I am most concerned about. I therefore congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this debate, because it enables us to talk about the impact of knife crime on the young in particular.
According to the most recent statistics, a fifth of all knife crime is committed by those under the age of 17, who are legally children. When I was a magistrate in the youth court, I would often find young boys—they were invariably boys rather than girls—brought before the bench for carrying a bladed article. When I asked why they were carrying the bladed article, almost every young boy would give the same answer: they carried the knife for their own protection. It made them feel safe. Astonishingly, the Ben Kinsella Trust has reported that children as young as nine believe that.
Tragically, nothing could be further from the truth. Carrying a knife does not make them safer; in fact, it puts them in far more danger. As well as the threat to their own life, it risks a rapid journey on the path to serious criminality. Put simply, carrying a knife makes someone much more likely to use it or have it used  against them, and the consequences can be devastating. We have seen too many awful examples in recent months and years of gangs wielding machetes and children stabbing other children at school.
We all know that prevention is better than cure, so I am very pleased that the Government are committed to tackling the horror of knives on our streets nationally, with an investment of more than £110 million in 2023-24 to fight knife crime, including a focus on 20 violence reduction units and funds for hotspot policing in the most seriously affected areas. I welcome that.
In my own area, there has been considerable success in tackling knife crime, and I put on record my thanks to the Thames Valley police and crime commissioner, Matt Barber, for his focus on that. He has adopted a zero-tolerance approach to knife crime called Operation Deter, which was launched in Milton Keynes in the middle of last year, came to my Aylesbury constituency soon afterwards and is now being rolled out across the entire Thames Valley force area.
Op Deter’s main objective is to make better use of charging and remanding offenders aged 18 and over to court, sending a robust message to anyone found in possession of a knife: “If you are caught, you will be dealt with incredibly swiftly by both the police and the courts.” Overall, since July 2022, Op Deter has seen well over 1,000 arrests, and about half of those arrested have been charged and remanded into custody. The scheme has resulted in approximately 100 custodial sentences in addition to numerous suspended sentences and community orders.
That speedy intervention and no-nonsense approach by Thames Valley police is helping to make Aylesbury safer, with a clear understanding that there is zero tolerance for knife crime in our town. I am very pleased that in some parts of the force area, the local youth offending team is immediately notified when a child is arrested for carrying a knife, and a representative of that youth offending team then attends the police station within 90 minutes to meet the young person, giving them the maximum incentive to engage as early as possible.
I would like that approach to become much more widespread. I recognise that it is resource intensive, but it is important to get help and practical advice to those young people as soon as is possible. That echoes, I think, the hon. Member for Vauxhall’s argument that the reasons young children carry knives are frequently very complex. We need to get a much better understanding of them and tackle the causes. As I have said in this place before, it is not about finding an excuse for those people, but about looking at the causes and trying to tackle them to avoid repetition.
I was very pleased to learn that Op Deter has been highlighted as an example of best practice in a recent “In Focus” report by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, which concentrates on innovative and effective approaches to tackling serious violence. I hope that that article will spur other police forces to look at similar activities in other parts of the country.
In my local area, we also have other initiatives to combat knife crime, recognising that it is not just a job for the police, as other hon. Members have said. I recently attended an excellent community event to tackle anti-social behaviour that was held in Elmhurst and  organised by Buckinghamshire Council, the local authority. The neighbourhood policing team there have developed strategies to divert vulnerable young people away from knives that encompass other parts of that community, and their work with children and young adults is very encouraging.
One effective initiative has been the use of three knife amnesty bins—importantly, including one that is not in the police station. It is outside Southcourt Baptist Church, where people feel much safer going to deposit their knives or their bladed articles.

Wendy Morton: My hon. Friend makes a really important point; from the learning that I have done through the James Brindley Foundation this point about anonymity and knife bins is very clear. Does he agree that we must continuously seek to create opportunities for safe disposal of those types of weapons? It must be done in the right way, otherwise it fails before it even starts.

Rob Butler: My right hon. Friend is 100% correct. More than half the knives that have been deposited in Aylesbury were deposited at Southcourt Baptist Church, presumably because people feel safe. I know that the neighbourhood policing team in Aylesbury are looking for other sites that are away from the police station where they can install knife bins. Of course, the slight challenge is that it must be something that is absolutely secure and where other people cannot get to that bin to access the bladed articles and use them for nefarious purposes, but clearly there are places that can be found and that are successful, and I absolutely endorse what she says about encouraging that.
Another approach Southcourt Baptist Church is working hard on is providing constructive activities for children to help reduce the risk of their becoming involved in criminal activities in the first place. Boxing is proving particularly popular and effective in giving young people something constructive to do with their time, so that they do not risk getting caught up with other people who would encourage them to take part in illegal activities.

Florence Eshalomi: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making such a powerful speech. He talks about the fantastic work that that Baptist church is doing in his constituency. My first youth club setting was at my church hall. Does he recognise that we need to work with the faith communities to look at an approach to knife crime? For a number of families, their first port of call and the first people they turn to are their faith leaders.

Rob Butler: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. As I was saying a little earlier, it is about different parts of the community. It is not always the role of the Government or the local authority to provide those facilities, because they do not necessarily set up the right atmosphere for young people. It is interesting that people will go into a church or another kind of faith community, or indeed an alternative community area, because they feel safe and trusted there, not judged. It is vital that everybody recognises that.
To that end, other organisations in Aylesbury are having a positive impact on vulnerable children. Just a couple of months ago, I visited the Aylesbury Youth Motor   Project, a special garage that provides vocational training to children. It was inspiring to see the impact on young people of that garage’s hands-on approach to courses and the strong mentoring provided by the mechanics. They are primarily mechanics rather than trained youth workers or qualified teachers, but they are people to whom those particular young people can relate—they trust the mechanics and listen to their advice in a way that they perhaps do not with what we might consider more conventional authority figures. The boys at the Aylesbury Youth Motor Project were very blunt with me: traditional education does not suit everybody, and going to that garage was keeping them off the streets and stopping them committing crimes. I did not have to put those words in their mouths; they told me clearly. Projects like that are incredibly important.
I do not think any of us would disagree that knife crime is a serious blight on our communities. Blades are used by criminals to kill and maim. They have become glamourised, but there is no glamour in death and serious injury, and there is no excuse for carrying a knife. I am very pleased that Aylesbury is seeing success in tackling that menace. I will continue to work with all the groups there to make our town even safer. I encourage Ministers, not just in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice but across the whole of Government, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, to look at the work not only of Thames Valley police but of the likes of Southcourt Baptist Church and the Aylesbury Youth Motor Project, because it  will take the whole community to stop the scourge of knife crime.

Dan Jarvis: This has been an important and constructive debate. I commend the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing it and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. The right hon. Lady gave an excellent speech. I was particularly struck by what she said about “The Knife Angel” in her constituency. As she said, it is an incredibly poignant symbol reflecting on violence and knife crime.

Wendy Morton: Perhaps I could have been clearer. For absolute clarity, “The Knife Angel” is in Walsall borough but not in my constituency—I am on one side of the borough. It is in the town of Walsall, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz).

Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for making that clarification, but her point was important none the less.
Often, we talk of the perpetrators of knife crime—it is right that we do—but we should never forget that it is too often young people who are the victims. As Members of this House, we owe it to the victims and their loved ones to come up with solutions to this epidemic, and to ensure that no child or parent faces the tragic consequences of knife crime on our streets. In that spirit, there have been a number of considered and thoughtful contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) spoke movingly about the trauma that knife crime causes her constituents and about the pain experienced by the victim’s family. The hon. Member  for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) effectively brought to bear his long experience of the criminal justice system. He made an important point about tackling the causes to avoid repetition.
I will take this opportunity to tell the tragic story of Ronan Kanda, and his family’s campaign for justice. I know that the shadow policing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), met the family alongside their local MP, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), to learn about Ronan’s story. Ronan, a beloved son and brother, was just 16 years old when he was killed while walking home in Wolverhampton. Just a few yards from his front door, Ronan was attacked from behind by two 16-year-olds carrying a machete and a ninja sword. Ronan was stabbed twice and suffered wounds to his back and chest. Tragically, he died at the scene. It was later revealed that the perpetrators of this heinous act had mistaken Ronan for someone else—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman because this is a very sensitive and very sad matter, but I want to be certain that we are observing the sub judice rules. I am sure that he is well aware of what he can and cannot say, but I just want to be certain that nothing he says will prejudice anything that might come before the courts.

Dan Jarvis: I am very grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can give that assurance. I have been incredibly careful about describing the circumstances of the case, as I will be able to confirm in just a moment. Thank you.
The weapons used in the attack had been bought online by the perpetrators, who were just 16 years old themselves, using another person’s ID. They collected the items from a local post office on the day of the attack. In July of this year, they were sentenced to 16 years and 18 years in prison respectively for their crime.
Understandably, Ronan’s family have been completely devastated by his tragic loss. Courageously, they now campaign for ninja swords—the type of knife used in Ronan’s murder—to be taken off the streets once and for all, so that no other family should suffer the loss that they have suffered. The Government are right to want to give police more powers to seize and destroy such weapons, and they will have our support. However, we do not believe that the current ban goes far enough, as it still does not include the type of sword that killed Ronan. Will the Minister explain the Government’s reasoning for that, or, better still, will he confirm that the Government’s position is that such swords should be covered under forthcoming legislation?
During these debates, we must never forget the human cost of knife crime for victims and their families, as in Ronan’s case. Many families struggle to comprehend the senseless murder of their loved one. The strength of Ronan’s family in saying, “Never again should anyone suffer our pain,” should inspire us all in this House to act accordingly. That is needed now more than ever because, sadly, more young lives are being lost.
Last year saw the highest number of people killed with a knife for over 70 years. The biggest increase was among young boys aged 16 to 17. Knife crime rates remain stubbornly high. Compared with 2015, total  knife crime is up 70%, including record levels of knife-enabled rape and threats to kill. Last year, 75% of teenage homicides involved a knife or sharp instrument. As a consequence, it is now thought that more than 200,000 children are vulnerable to serious violence. Between 2021 and 2022, a record number of children were victims of crime. We need decisive action now.
As I am sure the Minister would agree, the first duty of any Government is to keep their people safe. On these fundamental questions, the Government need to show leadership in turning the tide on this knife crime epidemic. Labour has, for our part, set a route forward. Our community policing guarantee will put police back into town centres and neighbourhoods to make  streets safe again, with increased patrols and 13,000 more neighbourhood police and police community support officers. Too often in recent years, criminals have gone unpunished while victims have suffered the consequences. This cannot continue. Labour will put an end to that scandal.
Allied to those plans, the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), set out our proposals for a new national programme, working across Departments, to give Britain’s young people the best start in life. The “Young Futures” programme would act as a Sure Start for young people. It will also include a specific strand of activity targeted at young people most at risk of being drawn into violent crime, and will deliver help for young people who are struggling with their mental health. That will support our aim of halving serious violence, including knife crime and youth violence, within a decade—tackling crime and tackling the causes of crime. Tackling the scourge of knife crime will require a cross-Government approach, new youth hubs, and proper local plans to identify those who are most at risk and help them access the support they need. It also means Government Departments, schools and local services working together so that services operate around young people and their families, rather than in separate silos. It means getting the basics right, with more police officers on the street and working in our communities to bring criminals to justice. This is a serious issue, and it requires a serious response. Those on the Opposition Benches stand ready to meet the challenge.

Michael Tomlinson: May I join the shadow Minister in agreeing that this has been an important and constructive debate, and in praising my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing it and all Members who have contributed so constructively and expertly? I will start by picking up two points in my right hon. Friend’s speech, before picking up more of the threads. I join her in welcoming the campaign by her local newspaper The Express and Star to highlight this really important issue. I also welcome the role of the police and crime commissioner being rolled into that of the Mayor of the West Midlands. I agree with her that that will be a constructive move, and I look forward to it with her.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) spoke powerfully and with authority, as she always does, and I will comment on some of the points that she raised. I commend her for the work done by the all-party  parliamentary group on child criminal exploitation and knife crime, and I acknowledge the change in name that she has championed. She spoke powerfully and reflected on her maiden speech, and she mentioned some youth organisations. She had a constructive debate across the Chamber with my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), who acknowledged the work of voluntary organisations, churches and other faith groups.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury for mentioning Southcourt Baptist church and the excellent work that it has done. I acknowledge his expertise as a former board member of the Youth Justice Board and a former justice of the peace. I was a youth court aficionado in my younger days—as a young barrister, I should add. Carrying a knife does not make someone safer—quite the contrary.
May I address directly the shadow Minister’s point about swords, which is a serious one? Since the launch of the consultation to which I will turn in a moment, there has been interest in extending the ban to swords, and I understand the reasoning. However, the police have told us that the greatest risk at the moment is the use of zombie-style knives and machetes, so that is the focus of the work. It will be kept under review, and I am grateful to him for raising that issue.
May I now turn to some of the more specific issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills? Both she and my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury mentioned violence reduction units. He mentioned that 20 have been rolled out across the country, delivering a range of early intervention and prevention programmes to divert people away from a life of crime. The approach is working and is a good start, and the Grip hotspots are having an effect. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills will welcome that, and I can confirm that the West Midlands police receive funding, and rightly so, for both of those programmes.
May I turn to the consultation, which has been mentioned a number of times? Earlier this year, there were five proposals to tackle knife crime during the course of that consultation. We have been taking them forward and will do so in a suitable way. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills asks me how and when. As a former member of the Committee of Selection, she might like to look out in the new year for a particular statutory instrument Committee that will be of interest to her. I cannot confirm the precise date, but I know that she will have ways and means of finding out precisely how to get on to that Committee and to be a strong voice during the passage of that statutory instrument. We will introduce a ban on certain types of large knives that seem to appeal to those who want to use them as weapons. We will give the police more powers to seize those dangerous weapons, and create a new offence of possession of a bladed weapon with intent to harm, as well as increasing sentences.
May I turn to some of the other points that have been raised, and to some of the other actions that the Government are taking? Let me touch on serious violence reduction orders. In April we launched a pilot for serious violence reduction orders, with the west midlands being one of the four pilot areas. These civil orders give  the police the authority to stop and search known knife and weapon carriers, and they are designed both to deter and to protect.
One of the most important things that my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills mentioned was cross-Government working. She was absolutely right to do so, and a number of others picked up on this theme. That is absolutely right, because tackling knife crime requires a truly cross-Government approach. We are working very closely with other Departments, and I shall mention just three. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport recently announced the new Building Futures programme, which will provide mentoring and life skills training to those at risk of falling out of education—the Minister sitting next to me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), is nodding vigorously in support of that. There is also a new summer jobs programme targeted at 2,600 young people at risk of involvement in youth violence and crime.

Florence Eshalomi: I thank the Minister for highlighting those really important points. My constituency of Vauxhall is home to the wonderful south bank, and a number of organisations do powerful work in getting young people from diverse and untraditional backgrounds into the creative industry and into arts and media. They need more funding for that.

Michael Tomlinson: I invite the hon. Lady to lobby the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. If she stays for the next debate, she may even be able to lobby a Minister in person, but her bid has been heard loud and clear.
I turn now to the Department for Education, which is doing some work with a project called SAFE—Support, Attain, Fulfil, Exceed. There is £30 million-worth of funding for the taskforces. They are being delivered in 10 serious violence hotspots and aim to keep young people engaged in mainstream education. I will also mention the Ministry of Justice, because it has been mentioned during the debate. There is a programme called Turnaround, which provides extra funding for youth offending teams to intervene early and to ensure that children who are on the cusp of offending or being targeted are connected.
In the minute or so that I have left, may I close by thanking right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this very constructive debate? I agree that the scourge of knife crime is not a party political issue; it is a cross-party issue. I pay tribute not just to the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, but to the parents of Jimmy and the Mizen Foundation. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) for raising that. May I also pay tribute to the family of James Brindley and the Brindley Foundation? I know how hard it is to lose a young family member. In paying tribute to James Brindley’s family and others, may I say that they are continuing to ensure that something good might come from such tragedies?

Wendy Morton: I simply want to thank the Members who have contributed to this debate after a very busy week. It demonstrates how, on topics such as this, the  House comes together. We will continue to ask questions and to challenge the Government, but I think we all accept that this is a very complex problem. To tackle a problem, we need to really understand it. I feel assured that we will all continue to work together, because we know how important this problem is.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of knife crime.

Eleanor Laing: What an extremely good debate.

Richard Foord: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier, at business questions, the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) made a factually inaccurate and outlandish claim, which he may wish to come to the House to correct. I should say that I have notified him.
Can you inform me, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether making this accusation is appropriate? I will explain further. The hon. Member alleged that the chair of the Mid Devon District Council scrutiny committee, whom he named directly, was hosting a Christmas party funded by local government funds. That simply is not true. The party that the chair of the scrutiny committee, Councillor Rachel Gilmour, will be throwing on Sunday—it is open to anyone who wishes to join—will be funded by private funds. She will be paying for it herself. I wonder whether it would be appropriate to invite the hon. Member to correct the record.

Eleanor Laing: I thank hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As ever, it is not for the Chair to adjudicate on the veracity of anything that anyone says in this House. Those are often matters of opinion. It would appear that the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact. Of course, I do not know the facts. The hon. Gentleman clearly wishes to draw attention to his disagreement with the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) over the facts in question—I am pleased to hear that he notified that hon. Member of his intention to raise the point of order—and I can only say that he has done so, but it is not a matter for the Chair.

Three and Vodafone: Potential Merger

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Business and Trade Sub-Committee on National Security and Investment on 12 December 2023, on the NSI Act 2021: Annual Report 2022-2023, HC 365; and Oral evidence taken before the Business and Trade Committee on 17 October 2023, on the Three-Vodafone merger: implications for competition, HC 1869.]

Liam Byrne: I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merger of Three and Vodafone.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this debate on what will be one of the largest mergers we see in this country this year. The merger has profound implications for the security, the costs and the quality of that everyday essential in  the lives of our constituents: their mobile phone.
The debate is not simply about a merger; it is on three significant questions about the way in which our economy is now run. First—this is at the heart of the debate and a big question—is our investment security regime fit for purpose in a world where the threats are continuing to multiply? Secondly, are we are prepared to see the good, honest force of competition continue to wither? Thirdly, in a country where business investment continues to disappoint, will the deal help or not?
The facts are pretty straightforward. Three, which is owned by CK Hutchison, and Vodafone have announced a deal to merge. It is a £15 billion deal, which will create the largest operator in the market—bigger than EE  or O2. Crucially, it will reduce the number of mobile network operators from four to three, and the merged entity will be enormous. If the merger goes through, it will control half the UK’s mobile spectrum. The Competition and Markets Authority is looking at the competition dimensions, but we need to understand what the Government—either the Cabinet office or the Minister in his place—will do to ensure that the deal is brought in to the Investment Security Unit for the hardest possible review under the terms of the National Security and Investment Act 2021.
The case for the merger has been well rehearsed, and the Business and Trade Committee has taken evidence to try to unpack it. Three and Vodafone say that the deal will create a bigger firm that can compete much more effectively. They say that it will stimulate investment in the mobile network operator market and allow them to eliminate the overlap between their networks and use that money to build a mobile network with 25,000 masts, which will extend mobile coverage into the notspots that are so frustrating for many of our constituents. However, we need answers to some basic questions, and those start with national security, which must always be the principal consideration for us in the House when we look at such questions.
We cannot avoid the fact that the proposed deal will put 49% of the merged Three-Vodafone business into the hands of the CK group. That group is based in Hong Kong and, as such, falls under the ambit of the Hong Kong national security law. As the House knows, once upon a time, Hong Kong was considered meaningfully different from mainland China, but the introduction of  the national security law has destroyed Hong Kong’s legal autonomy. It now provides Chinese authorities with the power to demand user data from companies under the threat of fines, asset seizures, or indeed imprisonment.
Furthermore, CK’s leaders are not unconnected to the Chinese state—far from it. Li Ka-shing, the founder of CK Hutchison, has in the past voiced his support for China’s draconian moves in Hong Kong. His son, Victor Li, is a member of the 14th national committee of the Chinese people’s political consultative conference of the People's Republic of China, and is a member of the Chief Executive’s council of advisers of the Hong Kong special administrative region. Mr Li is a supporter of John Lee, the chief executive of Hong Kong and the former police chief who led the efforts to crack down on the pro-democracy protest movement in 2019.
Those facts are completely central to the debate on whether the merger should go through. As the Intelligence and Security Committee has made clear in its brilliant report on China, the problem is China’s whole-of-state approach. In that report, it noted that
“Chinese state-owned and non-state-owned companies, as well as academic and cultural establishments and ordinary Chinese citizens, are liable to be (willingly or unwillingly) co-opted into espionage and interference operations overseas”.
That was its considered judgment.
That warning comes on top of those we have already had from Richard Moore, the chief of MI6, who declared in July that China aims to strike deals with other countries that allow it to capture data on citizens and national projects. He said that
“Chinese authorities are not hugely troubled by questions of personal privacy or individual data security.”
Furthermore, Dr Alexi Drew, in a brilliant report commissioned by Unite the union, found that risks of data transfer and data collection naturally, obviously and directly create risks of surveillance, blackmail and economic intelligence gathering.
Of course, in Three, the CK group already runs a mobile company, but the Three-Vodafone merger will give the CK group a 49% share in a combined company that will run some of the most sensitive mobile and data contracts in the country, including NHS 111, police departments, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Justice, and the monitoring system in the Cabinet Office. The merger will radically extend CK Hutchison’s access to UK telecoms data from 9.5 million users to more than 27 million users—an almost threefold increase in the number of users, and their data, to which the CK group will have access. These are not just worries that we should be debating in this House, but worries that have already prompted our allies to act. On 15 September last year, President Biden announced that the risk of access to Americans’ private data would be a factor in blocking investment deals.
On Tuesday, the National Security and Investment Sub-Committee of the Business and Trade Committee held its first ministerial meetings and hearings with the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani). That was the first chance that we as a House have had to cross-examine a Minister on the UK investment screening process. In that cross-examination,  I put it to the Minister that our investment security process is now out of date, and asked her whether there is a case for updating the investment security regime in the light of modern threats as we now understand them. She said, “Yes”, and also that
“the regime we have at the moment is pretty robust, but it started off a couple of years ago, and we need to be aware of how new technologies could be an issue that we need to incorporate into the process.”
She went on to say that
“I have a personal view; I do think that we should be further investigating the issues around data capability”
and concluded that
“My personal view is that the accumulation of data against citizens of the UK is something that we need to explore if it can be exploited.”
There we have it: the head of MI6 is warning about the risks of China exfiltrating data; our allies are putting up and updating investment security regimes to stop Chinese access to data; and out of an abundance of prudence, we are blocking companies such as Huawei and TikTok because we are worried about Chinese access to data, yet the Vodafone-Three merger would allow a group with strong links to the Chinese state unparalleled access to data that flows through contracts with the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Justice and the pan-Government protective monitoring service for the Cabinet Office—

Navendu Mishra: And the police.

Liam Byrne: Along with the police. To cap it all, we now have a Minister warning that our investment security regime is out of date with the threats as we now understand them.

Julian Lewis: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate before the House. I am here primarily to listen, rather than contribute, but it is overwhelmingly clear that the relatively new Investment Security Unit is tailor-made to consider a merger proposal such as this one.
However, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, if he gets his wish and the Investment Security Unit does consider the merger proposal, the Intelligence and Security Committee would be blocked from scrutinising the work of that unit? The Government originally said that all its work should have been overseen and scrutinised by what was the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. The unit is now in the Cabinet Office, but even now, we are still not being allowed to scrutinise it. There is something very strange, if not sinister, going on. We have demanded the right to look at the classified elements of that unit’s work.
Finally, if the right hon. Gentleman were allowed into a secure room to look at the documentation that will come before the Investment Security Unit, if it is ever allowed to look at this deal, does he believe that his looking at that documentation without cleared staff, without being able to take notes and without being able to go away and discuss it with anybody else—as we on the Intelligence and Security Committee can do under our special regime—would amount to effective scrutiny of something with such clear security implications?

Liam Byrne: I am very grateful to the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee for that intervention. As the Chair of the National Security and Investment Sub-Committee, I have to warn the House that I do not believe we have access to the information that would allow us to scrutinise Government decisions on investment security effectively. His Committee’s report on China put it rather well:
“the Government does not want there to be any meaningful scrutiny of sensitive investment deals”.
It reminded us:
“Effective Parliamentary oversight is not some kind of ‘optional extra’—it is a vital safeguard in any functioning Parliamentary democracy”.
I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee. We have not yet finished our scrutiny process for this year, but as it stands today, I cannot give the House an assurance that we have in place an effective oversight and scrutiny regime for matters of significant consequence for the investment and economic security of our country.
The reason this issue is significant is that the hon. Member for Wealden and the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) have both been asked whether the Vodafone-Three merger will be assessed under the National Security and Investment Act, and have not responded. The risk is that the Government are now keeping more secrets than the companies involved.
When the Minister who is set to wind up responded to the debate earlier in the year, he said:
“I am sure that the questions raised, which are legitimate ones, will be properly taken into account…if it triggers the process under the National Security and Investment Act.”—[Official Report, 19 September 2023; Vol. 737, c. 502WH.]
In the light of the warnings the House has heard this afternoon, of what we now know about the CK group, of our allies updating their security investment regimes and of the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Wealden telling us that she does not think the investment security process is fit for the threats we now face, it is incumbent on the Minister today to assure us that this deal is being called in for the hardest of scrutiny by the Investment Scrutiny Unit in the Cabinet Office. As I understand it, the Act does allow the Minister to update the House on what he is doing, and I call on him to provide us with the information that could put our minds to rest, if indeed the decision is not to block the deal, for which there is a good case.
There are two further points: one is about competition and one is about investment. Successive research that we on the Business and Trade Committee have seen shows that there is a material negative impact on competition when the number of mobile network operators goes from four to three. There was disagreement in the evidence we took as a Committee, but particularly persuasive was the evidence from Professor Valletti, who is the former chief competition economist of the European Commission. He bluntly warned us:
“I have studied it, I have published about it and I have found no evidence that tells us that by consolidating there is more investment. Instead, I have found that every time there is a merger, prices go up.”
His research shows that prices decline slower in markets with three mobile network operators compared with  those with four. Unite research confirms that prices are 20% higher in European countries with three rather than four networks.
The final point is about investment. We do not have enough investment in our mobile network infrastructure, which creates big problems for our constituents. Both Vodafone and Three have promised that this will lead to a surge of new investment. The challenge, I have to say, is that the investment being proposed does not look materially bigger than the investment that Three and Vodafone are each already proposing. The risk is that this is funded through 1,000 to 1,600 job cuts, which is the number of job cuts that Unite the union has estimated. Certainly, as Professor Valletti has found, there is not much evidence that consolidating networks improves investment.
The Deputy Prime Minister has called for evidence and thoughts about how the investment screening and security regime needs to be updated. This is an important debate about the economic security of our country in a very different world. We have heard enough about the risks that this new merger presents. We have a black box, frankly, when it comes to the process by which the Government judge these threats. I do not think that that is a satisfactory position for the House to be in. The House needs some reassurance that this proposed merger will get called in under the National Security and Investment Act for the hardest possible scrutiny, and if there is any hint of a risk, let us be prudent and block the deal.

Chris Loder: It is a pleasure to be called in this debate. How pleased I am to follow the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). I offer my belated congratulations on his appointment to the Business and Trade Committee and endorse his comments on the security nature of the potential effects on this country. However, my remarks will be channelled more to understanding the potential effect of the merger on our constituents and consumers. I particularly thank Which? and others for providing insights to my contribution to this debate.
Will this merger be good or bad for all of our constituents? That is the question to ask. It is very clear from the briefings that Vodafone and Three have offered that their core aim is to advance the roll-out of 5G, or at least that is what they say. Some of us in this House have been in two debates already this week about connectivity and the issues that we face across the United Kingdom, particularly in rural areas. We are asking ourselves whether we should be allowing the rigorous commercial pursuit of 5G, when there are some people in the country who are lucky to have 3G, let alone 4G. Should we be enabling and allowing enormous businesses that will become still larger to have free licence to forget rural parts of the country, in my case rural West Dorset?
There is such as a thing as the universal service obligation. It is meant to protect those who are in the worst possible situation with respect to connectivity. That, I am afraid to say, does not appear to be working, and we should ask ourselves why. Increasingly, it is my opinion that we have a weak and ineffective regulator that is not protecting the rights of consumers and residents. I find it incredible, for example, that the  Vodafone map says that certain parishes and villages are covered with a mobile signal, when in actual fact they are not, and Ofcom, the regulator, does nothing about it. Because the map says that, it often obviates the need to provide connectivity for those people.
I emphasise the point that this merger will give a third of the UK market to one firm. That is absolutely incredible in this day and age, when we are clearly moving in a technological direction where new developments and innovations are key. The use of mobile phones—Androids and so on—is increasing, and the fact that we are, in effect, entrusting a third of the nation’s connectivity to one firm is questionable.
We need to understand some of the experiences that this nation has had so far with companies such as Vodafone. It is relatively common knowledge that there is a big question about Vodafone’s contribution—or, should I say, lack thereof—to the Exchequer. It pays, as far as I can see, no corporation tax for being a multibillion-pound organisation. In fairness, it will say that it invests a lot of money in infrastructure in the country, and I am not disputing that point. However, we should ask ourselves whether it is right to enable a business to enlarge still further when, I assume, it will continue to operate on the same guidelines, under which it pays little, if any, corporation tax. We should not think that this is new. From my research, I found that this situation first arose in 2012. This has already been going on for 11 years, and it is important that the House takes these matters into consideration as part of this debate.
The scale of investment that we have seen so far, as far as I can see, is frankly a bit of a joke. The investment that I have been told is forthcoming in my constituency is something that I just don’t see. Indeed, Vodafone itself had to apologise for basically misleading me and for guaranteeing that we would fix various connectivity issues in certain parts of my constituency. It is a real concern to me that we are in this situation, particularly when I want to research this matter and it always refers to the currency in euros rather than in pounds. I invite hon. Members to look on the Vodafone website to research this and understand it. It really does give me cause for concern.

Navendu Mishra: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s contribution with great interest. He made a point earlier about misleading information. The House has been told that the primary function of this merger is to increase investment in infrastructure in the UK. Does he agree that the primary function of this merger is pure profit—it is basically corporate greed?

Chris Loder: I thank the hon. Member for his kind intervention. He almost takes the words out of my mouth, as I go on to the next part of my speech.
The case that is being put, as I understand it from the brief received from both Vodafone and Three, is that the merger will support increasing amounts of investment. They go on to say further that the merger will generate £700 million of savings. When we start to unpack it, what we are actually dealing with here is massive job cuts. We expect to see up to 1,600 people lose their jobs in the United Kingdom alone. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill mentioned that, but what  he failed to include in his remarks is that a programme of 11,000 job cuts is already going on globally within Vodafone. While I am not the biggest advocate or supporter of Unite the union, I can well understand and agree with the point that the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) makes.
I will progress my remarks to talk about the effect on the consumer in respect of prices and mobile phone bills. It is right that we consider what has happened in the past few years in Australia, where Vodafone has undertaken a merger with TPG. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission report showed that Australian prices all rose and that investment fell. I understand that the rise in prices is contested by some operators, but I could not find it contested that investment fell—and not just by a little bit, but by 45%. That is a considerable amount, and it gives me cause for concern when looking at this situation. We have to ask ourselves: to what extent do we believe what we are being presented with? That gives me even greater concern when I consider the national security matters that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill raised.
My constituency of West Dorset has 400 square miles and 132 parishes, and we have ropey coverage, to say the least. I have had to look in the mirror and ask myself, “Will this merger help the 82,000 constituents who depend on mobile connectivity increasingly every day?” Some 97% of the businesses in West Dorset are small or micro-sized. They do not have enormous amounts of cash to put in substantial investment, so that question is important.
For me, given what I have seen so far, it comes down to a question of trust. That is why I have a slight problem with what is being presented to us. Vodafone’s coverage map for my constituency is wrong. I have contested it, and I have gone to the regulator about it. Vodafone says that most parts of rural West Dorset have a signal. I am sorry, but the places that it indicates do have signal do not. That shows how weak the regulator Ofcom is in dealing with this issue. It is allowing operators to get away scot-free under the guise of a universal service obligation that is not delivering what is necessary for those people. We find it not just once or twice, but time and time again.
I went to visit the small village of Stoke Abbott, which is on the outskirts of the beautiful town of Beaminster, earlier in the year. I was pleased—it was somewhat surprising, I thought—to have secured a number of commitments to improve that village’s appalling level of connectivity. Regrettably, Vodafone had to correct itself, because it had misled me. It would no longer continue those improvements, and it went on to say that it believed that the problems would be solved by improved 4G coverage. Well, I am afraid that those improvements have not happened to date. As I said, this comes down to trust. Vodafone did apologise for its somewhat disingenuous statements, but that shows what we are dealing with here, and it also exposes the weakness of the regulator in addressing these issues in a meaningful way.
Given my personal experience of the organisation and how it treats my constituents, why would we want to afford it the ability to become larger and more dominant in the market? In my opinion, it has such a bad record of customer service to local people. I do not know if anyone else here has the joy of being a Vodafone  customer, as I do. Its customer service hotline is known as 191. If I ring that number, it is virtually impossible to speak to someone to get help. Many of my constituents have had the same experience. It is just incredible that, if they are fortunate enough to get through to someone who can help them, they are directed to what they call the director’s office, which is just a shambles. It takes months to resolve the slightest difficulty. The situation that I outlined earlier, whereby coverage is not as some say it is, is appalling.
One of my fine constituents from Maiden Newton got in touch with me only a few days ago to share her experience. In fairness to Vodafone, she is a customer of Three, which, by and large, provides its customers with a reasonable service. My constituent put it well in her email:
“How can we level up as a rural community when it’s hard to tune in to digital radio or make a phone call? As a small business owner I often have to do business on the move, but find I can’t access anything as the signal is too poor.”
She goes on to say that, clearly, something has happened in the last six months. The network provider had told her that work needed to be done on a mast in the area, but that still has not been sorted. These issues just go on and on.
I was grateful to Three and Vodafone for providing me with the briefing. I thought it was reasonably interesting, but I was looking for the word “customer” in there, and I could not see it once. If anybody else was able to find it, I will stand corrected, and I may need to get my eyes tested again. That indicates to me the real drive behind the merger. The briefing that we have been provided with, for which I am grateful, shows what this is about.

Richard Foord: The hon. Member and I are neighbours, and I congratulate him on talking about the rural character of his constituency and how the merger might affect his constituents as customers. I also suggest that it would affect his and all our constituents as citizens because, should the merger take place, it would make users of this phone service subject to China’s national intelligence law, article 7 of which states:
“Any organization or citizen shall support, assist and cooperate with the state intelligence work”.
That will be the obligation on CK Hutchison and its employees. Does he agree?

Chris Loder: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind intervention. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill made a lot of those points, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), and I agreed with them earlier in my speech. This area needs much greater scrutiny. I remember not long after first coming to this House a few years ago, we had considerable concern about the behaviour of companies that was taking place, or could take place, that would put our national security at risk. That is why I support the comments made earlier by both right hon. Gentlemen.

Julian Lewis: On that point, I recall that in 2021, while the National Security and Investment Bill was going through the House, the Government repeatedly said from the Dispatch Box that in any conflict between economic interest and national security their policy was  that national security would come first. That was the whole point of bringing in the legislation. Now it appears that there is even a question mark on whether the structures set up in the legislation will examine this proposed questionable deal, let alone allow it to be effectively scrutinised by Parliament once they have done that examination.

Chris Loder: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He makes a very valid point. I recall the debates we had in the House several years ago and I think they were very meaningful. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will respond to some of the genuine concerns that a number of us in this House have.
In its first line, the Vodafone and Three brief states that the current UK telecoms market—their own industry—is dysfunctional, and that consolidation is needed to remedy that. I regret to say to the House that, having gone through that and some of the excellent briefings received from other organisations, I am not convinced that the merger is the right thing to do. A number of points have been made on national security, competition and the consumer that indicate to me that it is not necessarily in the interests of the country or the consumer. The brief confirms that, talking about billions of pounds—or euros, on the website—which appear to be the only thing they are interested in. It is of huge concern to me that we are going from four operators to three, given the situation we face. I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider what action to take so that the regulator not only has proper teeth to sort out the issues I have mentioned but that in any future decisions genuine consideration is given to whether a potential merger is in the interests of the country and our constituents. I am afraid that at the moment I am not convinced that it is the right thing to do.

Navendu Mishra: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my membership of Unite the union. I am grateful to Unite for providing a detailed briefing on the merger. It has been campaigning on the issue for a long time, because, as both Members—my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder)—who have contributed so far mentioned, almost 1,600 jobs could be lost. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill for securing the debate. He has done a lot of work in the background, including as Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.
There are two key points I want to cover. First, the merger is bad news for customers. There are 650 constituencies represented in this House and I believe this merger impacts every single one. If the merger goes through it will mean higher costs for consumers. Currently more than 2.2 million households in the UK are struggling with the cost of mobile services, so it is not as if they are in a good position to start with. The merger will reduce competition and increase monopoly and pricing power for these operators.
I want to say a little about Greater Manchester, because that is the part of the world that I represent in the House. A Liverpool University study found in 2020  that as many as 1.2 million residents of Greater Manchester alone faced some form of digital exclusion, while the Office for National Statistics has found that 40% of Greater Manchester benefit claimants have very low digital engagement and 23% of residents are not using digital services because of lack of money. This merger will increase prices and dramatically worsen the situation.
The hon. Member for West Dorset talked about his patch. He represents a rural part of England, while my constituency is more urban, but there will be people in each and every constituency who are digitally excluded, in many cases because of a lack of financial resources. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill mentioned the research conducted by the former chief competition economist at the European Commission. According to that research, we can expect an average increase of about £300 in mobile phone bills. Reference has been made to Vodafone’s customer service. I am not a Three customer, so I do not know what its customer service is like, but we are looking at nearly 1,600 job losses. Given the cost of living crisis, not only is the merger terrible news for UK customers, but the livelihoods of the people who work in these businesses is on the line.
I will not repeat many of the points that have already been made about national security, but we should be clear about the fact that Three is owned by the Hong Kong-based CK group. If the merger goes through, the new entity will have access to the data of 27 million UK nationals, as well as highly classified data under Vodafone’s existing contracts with, for instance, the national health service, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Justice, and several police forces. I have been campaigning on this issue for a long time, and was lucky enough to secure a Westminster Hall debate on it earlier in the year. In July, following my campaign to stop the merger, I wrote to the chief constable of my local force, Greater Manchester police, about its contract with Vodafone. I received a speedy response, and I am grateful to the chief constable, Mr Watson, and to the force.
The chief constable told me that under section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988, forces are not permitted to take non-commercial considerations into account when awarding contracts. The exclusions set out in subsection (5) are wide-ranging, and without intervention from the Secretary of State on specific issues, public bodies must adhere to the rules set out in the Act. I am quite concerned about the fact that my local police force has a contract with Vodafone, as have several other forces in England. The issue of the data transmitted through Vodafone from those police forces, as well as the NHS, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Justice and other public bodies is a very serious matter. I could go on and on about CK group’s close personal links with the Chinese state and the Beijing-supported Hong Kong Government, but I will not go through them again.
The Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), made this point earlier, but I would like to reiterate that no parliamentary scrutiny of the security approval process is under way. The Government are thought to be assessing the merger under the National Security and Investment Act 2021, but have refused to  inform Parliament about the process or how they will make their decision. I am told that the Prime Minister and senior Ministers have held closed-door meetings with CK group executives in the last 12 months. I think right hon. Gentleman used the word “sinister”, and I agree with him: I too think that there is something quite sinister going on. The Government are not being upfront.
While I am quoting what has been said by earlier speakers, let me quote the hon. Member for West Dorset, who observed that the regulator was weak. I agree with him entirely, but I also think that the Government are weak. The Government should get a grip on the situation, because it is terrible news not only for people in each and every constituency but for the nation.
This merger would result in Chinese state interference in the UK, and it would give the CK group access to sensitive national Government, local government and public body contracts. The merger is not worth the risk. My understanding is that there is no evidence that this merger would increase investment. We have already heard about grey spots and areas with no 5G, 4G, 3G or even simple mobile coverage at all, so we need to ensure that Parliament gives proper scrutiny.
This merger is bad news for British customers and bad news for Britain, but I fear the Government are, yet again, asleep at the wheel on another crucial issue.

Eleanor Laing: I call the SNP spokesman.

Kirsty Blackman: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) on securing this important debate, which I am glad the Backbench Business Committee has granted. The SNP has concerns on a few fronts. I will not repeat the stats, but I almost entirely agree with what he said. I thank Unite for its work and for its briefing.
There are various issues with the merger, particularly relating to consumers and security. We were pleased when, back in June or July, the Minister talked about regulatory hurdles that have to be cleared for this merger to take place, but those regulatory hurdles are not sufficient. It should not and cannot be a rubber-stamping exercise, so the comments we have heard about parliamentary scrutiny are very important.
The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has made me even more concerned about the possible lack of scrutiny. We are, after all, a parliamentary democracy, so we should be scrutinising the merger. Those Members who have the access and the ability to scrutinise the merger, with the assistance of confidential documents, should be doing this, because the merger clearly has a significant impact on national security.
The Government published their annual resilience report just a few weeks ago, and people need to be able to communicate with one another. Consumer data is important, and it is likely that a Chinese company will have access to 27 million people’s data, which is pretty terrifying, but it will also have access to mobile masts. The new mobile masts that are being put up as part of the shared rural network will be owned or are owned by a number of different companies, one of which would be this Three/Vodafone conglomerate. If it happens, the conglomerate would have roughly a third of each mast,  which will cover a huge swathe of these islands. If there were any sort of attack on the masts, large chunks of the population would not be able to access 4G. The same issue applies to data security. What data is associated with this critical infrastructure, and what changes would be caused by this possible merger?
There are a couple of other reasons for concern. The risk of job losses is incredibly important; it is not of secondary importance. We are in a cost of living crisis, and having more jobs at threat when people are already stretched, already struggling, is pretty concerning as it puts them in an even worse position.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) talked about his local police force’s Vodafone contract. The Procurement Act 2023 has security provisions that mean the Secretary of State is able to proscribe companies that have significant issues. However, given the amount of trouble we had getting the Government to do anything about Huawei, in relation to 5G, and Hikvision, in relation to CCTV cameras, I have no faith that the powers in the new Procurement Act could or would be used, and certainly not with any speed. We do not want to end up with these decisions made and the merger approved in some way, only for the Government to decide to backtrack on it. That would be even worse than if they decided to say no at an earlier point. I do not want us to end up realising that the risk has been created and that we need to try to sort the mess out. None of us wants to be in that position. I am not saying that the deal is terrible and should never go ahead. What I am saying, for all those reasons, is that there should be proper scrutiny, because there are significant concerns about China’s potential interference in critical national infrastructure.
On the consumer issues, the fact that prices are 20% higher in those European markets with only three major mobile phone companies instead of four is especially concerning, given the cost of living crisis, as the hon. Member for Stockport made clear. This deal should be properly scrutinised in order to best serve the public and our national security, and to protect our critical national infrastructure into the future.

Eleanor Laing: I call the shadow Minister.

Chris Evans: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate. In particular, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) for raising this issue and for his work as the new Chair of the Business and Trade Committee. I want to add my congratulations to him, however belatedly, on his appointment. He gave a comprehensive outline of the security implications of the proposed merger.
We had a comprehensive intervention from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), my fellow Welshman. Whenever he speaks, we should all listen. He speaks with some authority, as both the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee and a distinguished former Chair of the Defence Committee.
The hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) raised some important points about rural broadband connectivity and his frustrations with companies and the regulator, which many of us share.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), mentioned some quite shocking statistics. Some 2.2 million households are struggling with mobile coverage, while in Greater Manchester—which he represents and speaks so passionately about—1.2 million people are facing digital exclusion, which is something we should all be concerned about.
There can be no doubt that the proposed merger between Three and Vodafone is not without controversy, as we have heard. We are often quite rightly chided when we throw barbs at each other in this House. Often, the House is at its very best when we are allowed to develop our arguments and when we listen in a spirit of respect for one another, as we have this afternoon, not just in this debate but in the previous debate. Even though I only agreed to step in for my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) on Monday, my office has been absolutely inundated by those on both sides of the argument. There are those who believe that the merger will allow for more effective competition, while others, such as Unite—which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport mentioned, and which has put a huge effort into the campaign—believe that it will raise prices to the detriment of consumers and result in job cuts across the board. It is my understanding that the Competition and Markets Authority is investigating, and the call for views on the merger ended on 1 November.
I have listened to the debate closely, and it seems to me that the potential merger rests on two central questions. First, will consumers and the industry benefit from it? Secondly, who has access to the UK’s mobile networks? Let me turn to the first question. The merger will shrink the market, resulting in only three major competitors instead of the present four. The new company would be the largest in the market, boasting over 27 million customers. This comes against the backdrop of tariff increases this year. O2 has increased prices by 17.3%, while EE, Vodafone, Three and BT Mobile have increased prices by 14.4%. It is not just on contracts that customers are losing out; people who use their phones infrequently are getting less value for their money. Ofcom has also stated that the year-on-year real-terms increase in pay-monthly, SIM-only contracts is 13%.
A smartphone is no longer a luxury, but an essential piece of everyday life. It is not something that we as a society can allow people to be priced out of having. Children are taught on smartphones. Interviews take place over the phone. Emergency services are called on smartphones. If Three and Vodafone merge and continue their respective trends of increasing prices over inflation, that could price many out of the necessity of having a phone.
From an industry perspective, Unite the union estimates the merger will cause 1,000 to 1,600 job cuts. Vodafone is also in the process of cutting 11,000 jobs globally and has acknowledged that the proposed merger would see duplication with head office jobs. Both companies claim that there is more competition in the market than it first appears. Although there are only four mobile network providers, there are numerous mobile virtual network operators, such as Giffgaff, that can buy access to the infrastructure of the big four at incredibly competitive rates to offer competitive pricing. The mobile virtual network operators believe that a third big player in the market would be better for competition.
Furthermore, Three and Vodafone claim that the merger is necessary to invest in 5G, aiming for an £11 billion investment over a decade. While the investment target seems positive, it remains largely uncertain. Past mergers in other markets have not always resulted in increased investment. Notably, the European Union’s competition directorate blocked CK Hutchison’s attempt to acquire O2 from Telefónica in 2016. Competition involves more than just three players vying for business. The policy of local coverage often limits consumer choices. With fewer players in the market, pricing decisions might prioritise company profits over consumer value.

Kirsty Blackman: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the necessity of mobile phones for life. When interacting with Government services, for example going through the Jobcentre system, people have to be able to access the internet, although many of them are earning very little or nothing. Does he share my concern that the reduction in the number of companies in the market will hit hardest those people who are least able to afford it?

Chris Evans: I absolutely agree. At the start of my speech, I alluded to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport said about 1.2 million people in Greater Manchester being digitally excluded. We do not know the figures nationwide, but that is a serious worry to me and something we have to bear in mind when we talk about such mergers. I will develop that argument further when I sum up. With fewer major players in the market, pricing decisions might prioritise company profits over consumer value. I hope the issues raised will be thoroughly examined by the CMA in its investigation.
Let me turn to the second key question, about access to the UK mobile networks. It is important that the Government safeguard national and personal data if the merger moves forward. Recently, Vodafone secured a contract to provide video conferencing and recording services at UK military courts. If the merger proceeds, Three would then hold them as well. That becomes significant when we learn that CK Hutchison Holdings, the owner of Three, is a conglomerate based in Hong Kong and registered in the Cayman Islands, established in 2015, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill.
At this early stage, it is only right to ask, in light of national security concerns that have been raised in this House and elsewhere, whether any assessment has been made of CK Hutchinson’s connections with the Chinese state. If so, does the merger pose any risk to individual security or that of the nation? Would the merger involve excluding Government contracts from the merger to ensure data security? These are crucial points that demand careful consideration and a robust plan to protect sensitive data and national interests. Is the economic security sub-committee of the National Security Council looking at the merger? As this decision is a matter of national security, will Parliament have an active role in this decision-making process?
Before the Minister responds, I draw his attention to a report of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Chair of the Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East, will correct me if I am wrong, but it says:
“Effective Parliamentary oversight is not some kind of ‘optional extra’ – it is a vital safeguard in any functioning Parliamentary democracy”.
Therefore, I hope the Minister will assure us that Parliament will be engaged and informed throughout the significant decision-making process. That is a hugely important point—I cannot emphasise that enough—given the potential national security risk if the largest mobile network in the UK is significantly controlled by a foreign company.
Ultimately, the decision on security issues rests with the Investment Security Unit in the Cabinet Office, with final approval resting with the Prime Minister. I hope the Prime Minister will consider the sensitive material involved in the merger including, but not limited to, the data from 27 million customers, along with contracts for the NHS, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Defence. Whether the merger goes ahead remains to be seen, but many questions have yet to be addressed. In winding up, will the Minister shed some light on the vital issues raised today in this vital debate?

John Whittingdale: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) both on his appointment as Chair of the Business and Trade Committee and on bringing this issue to the House today. There is no question but that the issues under debate today are very important. The outcome of the possible merger will have implications for thousands of consumers across the country, and the right hon. Gentleman raises perfectly valid questions.
To some extent, this debate is something of a reprise of the one initiated by the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) in Westminster Hall last September. I am afraid that I am likely to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, because I am not able to add very much on the process to what I said back in September. He will be aware that we have a long-standing and robust system for looking at the competition aspects of mergers and acquisitions. As that is conducted independently of Government, it has always been the case that Ministers do not comment on the competition aspects, but rather leave it for the regulatory body—in this case the Competition and Markets Authority—to make recommendations. Ministers will then reach a decision once that process has been completed.
On the national security implications, we also have an extremely robust system in place, but it has always been the case that the Government do not talk about whether inquiries are taking place. All I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that, like all other national security matters, we do take telecoms security extremely seriously.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Things have moved on since the debate sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra). On Tuesday, the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Industry and Economic Security, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), told my Committee that she thought that the investment security regime was not fit to match the threats that we now see. Given that the Deputy Prime Minister has said that there needs to be an overhaul of the investment security regime—he is calling for that evidence—and given that the Minister  responsible has said that she does not think the regime is currently fit for the threat that we now face, it is essential that the Minister today is able to give us some reassurance that the questions arising from this merger will be addressed by the Investment Security Unit, not least because Parliament has very limited oversight of the decisions that Government will arrive at.

John Whittingdale: The overall question of the efficacy of the investment security process is for the Cabinet Office. The right hon. Gentleman may well wish to pursue his inquiry with the Minister responsible. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend, who chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee, will also have views about the process that the Government have put in place. All I can say to both Select Committee Chairs is that, in relation to this specific merger, we cannot comment on whether it is currently undergoing scrutiny through that process, but we believe that the process that is available for the examination of mergers of this kind on national security grounds is robust. Beyond that, I cannot really go.

Julian Lewis: I am not asking my right hon. Friend to say whether this particular proposed merger is being investigated. What I am asking him to say is whether the Government accept that there is a significant national security dimension to any proposal for a merger involving a major shareholding by a Chinese subservient company.

John Whittingdale: I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me; I am not sure that I can even go so far as to say that. It is on the record that the Government believe that foreign ownership of major critical infrastructure raises security concerns, which is precisely why the process was put in place and the Investment Security Unit was set up. We believe that we now have the ability to determine whether there are serious national security concerns, and if it is determined that there are, powers are available to the Government to take action to protect our national security. I think the answer is yes, but I do not want to be drawn into particular countries or companies. If he will forgive me, I will leave it at that.
Several Members raised wider questions. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) is right that we need to look at the context in which the merger is possibly being considered. His test of whether it is good for his constituents is a perfectly valid one. As he observed, this is the third time we have debated connectivity in 24 hours. That is a measure of how important it is to people. It is the Government’s very firm view that the roll-out of 5G connectivity has huge potential for such things as public services, industry, transport and education. There will be enormous benefits to obtaining the widespread adoption of 5G—benefits that might amount to £159 billion by 2035.
That is why the Prime Minister’s commitment to the UK becoming a science and technology superpower will deliver benefits for everybody in this country. Connectivity, and the availability of mobile telephony, lies at the heart of that. We are already beginning to  see benefits from 5G, but the Government are clear that we wish to move beyond the current basic, or non-stand-alone 5G, towards stand-alone 5G. Considerable investment  is taking place: something like nearly £2 billion is being invested by the mobile operators in enhancing and improving their networks, and 5G is now available from at least one operator outside 85% of premises.

Navendu Mishra: I understand the Minister’s point about 85% 5G coverage, but what are the Government doing about the millions of people in poverty who cannot access 5G, 4G, 3G, or even simple broadband? Does he believe that the merger will mean lower prices for British consumers?

John Whittingdale: I will come on to digital exclusion, which the hon. Member has rightly focused on as a major issue facing the country. Leaving aside whether the merger is a good idea, that is a challenge that we are determined to address.
We believe that very good progress is being made on coverage. As I think was expressed in both debates yesterday—certainly my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has raised this several times—the figures that we are given on the success of extending coverage do not always match the experience of the people living in those locations. Coverage predictions are made as a result of computer programmes simulating the way mobile signals travel, and signals can be blocked by obstructions. For that reason, sometimes the figures are not as good, which concerns us. That is why we said in the wireless infrastructure strategy that Ofcom needs to improve the accuracy of its reporting on mobile coverage and network performance. We will pursue that actively with Ofcom.

Chris Loder: I think my right hon. Friend is agreeing that some of Ofcom’s assumptions on coverage are a little questionable. Given that the universal service obligation is based on those assumptions, can he help us to push hard to get that resolved? It is negatively affecting so many people in rural areas, who are being told on a map that they are getting a reasonably good signal, but in reality are not.

John Whittingdale: Ofcom teams go out and test the predictions that are made about the extent of coverage. They do not just accept what the computer tells them; they visit various locations. However, Ofcom needs to do more. Although I am not going to be in this post for more than another few days, I do have a meeting with Ofcom before I hand back the baton to my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez). The issue was already on my list to raise with Ofcom, and I will draw the chief executive’s attention to the point my hon. Friend makes.
As I have said, we have set out our ambition to achieve stand-alone 5G across all populated areas by 2030. We believe that that will bring real benefits to the United Kingdom, but it requires billions of pounds of investment, which has to come from the commercial sector. Therefore, we have also set out a suite of measures to try to help operators to deliver that ambition. We also have a 10-point plan for rural connectivity, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) , who has worked very hard as the rural connectivity champion.
This debate has focused on security, and that is obviously a key factor that we need to take into account. The Government absolutely recognise the importance of   having secure and resilient digital infrastructure. However, as I have already indicated, we think that thanks to recent legislation the UK now has one of the strongest telecoms security regimes in the world. The Government have used the powers of the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 to set out clear timetables for the removal of Huawei from our 5G networks by the end of 2027. The Act has also established a new cyber-security framework to improve the security and resilience of public telecoms networks and services, which is now in force. Following the Government’s decision to remove Huawei from UK 5G networks, coupled with the need to mitigate the risks of long-term consolidation in the telecoms equipment market, our 5G supply chain diversification strategy sets out a plan to ensure that the UK has a healthy and competitive telecoms supply chain market.
That plan is backed by the £250 million open networks R&D fund, which will accelerate the adoption of open radio access networks technology. That will help to bring more suppliers into the market and to diversify, making it easier to reduce our dependency. However, I assure the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill that we are committed to protecting our networks, shielding our critical national infrastructure and understanding how new networks are designed, built and managed securely.
The possible merger deal between Vodafone and Three, as I have said, is subject to regulatory approvals to assess the risk to national security, competition and consumers in the way that all mergers of its kind would be. While we of course welcome investments where they support growth and jobs, the security of our critical infrastructure is also of prime importance. However, I am not able to go further than I have already done in answering the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about precisely the process by which that is measured.
These are other aspects to the merger. The hon. Member for Stockport, I think, raised the possibility of price increases, and hon. Members have commented on the consequences of a merger, also involving Vodafone, that took place in Australia. The only thing I would say is that every market is different, and therefore what happened in Australia cannot be used to draw any conclusions about what might happen here— although, according to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s latest report, in fact mobile service prices have stayed pretty much unchanged between 2020 and 2022.
Affordability, which was raised by the hon. Member for Stockport and others, is something that we take seriously. He is right that the possession of a mobile phone is becoming an essential of life that, during a cost of living crisis, people may find it difficult to afford, but I recognise the efforts that have been made by mobile operators, including Three and Vodafone, to support customers by bringing forward social tariffs for those on low incomes, as well as by donating millions of gigabits of data, and providing devices, to the National Databank.
There are currently 27 providers of social tariffs, and millions of households across the UK are eligible. I have expressed concern in the past about the low take-up of social tariffs, but I am pleased to say that it is now increasing, although there is still further work to do in  bringing the possibility of a social tariff to the attention of people who may find a mobile phone difficult to afford. Mobile prices in the UK are among the lowest compared with countries such as Italy, Germany, Spain, France and the United States.

Kirsty Blackman: On the topic of social tariffs, I agree that low take-up is still a concern. When I visited my local jobcentre, I asked the staff there to ensure that they inform the people who come through the door about social tariffs. Will the Minister join me in encouraging MPs around the House to urge those working in customer-facing roles with people who are struggling financially to talk about mobile social tariffs?

John Whittingdale: I am very happy to join the hon. Lady in calling for that. I recently met my ministerial colleague at the Department for Work and Pensions to discuss what more we can do to ensure that benefit claimants are aware of the possibility of going on to social tariffs.
I am afraid that I cannot say any more about the detail of the proposed merger, other than that we have well-established and robust processes in place for the consideration of both the impact on competition in the market and any possible national security concerns. I am confident that those processes will be followed, if necessary, in this case.

Roger Gale: With the leave of the House, I call Liam Byrne to wind up.

Liam Byrne: This has been an extremely useful debate. Let me conclude it by offering my thanks and congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) on leading this campaign so vigorously. My thanks go to Unite the union for informing the House with such important research on the questions of national security.
Unfortunately, I fear that the debate has raised more questions than it has answered. It is a matter of concern that the Minister cannot tell us how the principles of defending our national security against bad investments apply to one specific case. This is a test case for whether our investment security regime is fit for the threat that we now face. We have heard two Select Committee Chairs tell the House that we, as parliamentarians, cannot assure the House that we can come to a judgment about whether the Government are making good or bad decisions. That is not a happy place for Parliament to be in. I am shocked that the Minister cannot tell us that a Chinese-subservient company is in any way blocked from acquiring access to the data on 27 million citizens in this country. That is a pretty poor state of affairs.
I hope that this may be the first of a few debates to come, but I pray that the Government quickly come to some new decisions about how this investment security regime operates in the future. We do not have a small yard and a high fence; right now, it seems that our security regime is a big garden and a low fence. I am afraid that in the world we live in, that is not good enough.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merger of Three and Vodafone.

Serious Violence: Battersea

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mike Wood.)

Marsha de Cordova: I start by welcoming the Minister to his new post, although it is deeply worrying that his former role of Minister of State for Disabled People, Health and Work has been scrapped.
There is no doubt that cuts to police and public services are directly linked to the rise in serious violence in the country. I have called for this debate as meaningful actions are needed to tackle the epidemic of serious violence that we are seeing. It is no exaggeration to say that this is a national crisis—one that has been exacerbated by successive Conservative Governments.
For me, it is an absolute honour to represent Battersea, as it is a great place to live, work and visit. Sadly, however, over the past three months there have been three incidents of serious violence, two of which have resulted in fatalities. We have seen at first hand how serious violence can destroy lives, bring devastation to families and impact on the wider community’s sense of safety and security. There are no words to describe how difficult it is when I visit families who have lost loved ones to violent crime. It is heartbreaking to hear their feelings of helplessness and despair. Every incident should strengthen our determination to build a safer society for everyone.
The Tories like to talk tough on crime, but it is all words and very little action. The data tells a devastating story about their record on crime and justice, which is one of damaging decline and collapsing confidence. Nationally, serious violence is up by 60% since 2015, with knife crime, gun crime and robbery all increasing. Knife crime is up by 74%, with over 50,000 incidents last year alone and the highest number of fatalities in a year for 70 years. Most scandalously, it is young people who are most affected. Last year, the biggest increase in knife-related fatalities was among young boys aged 16 and 17. During 2021-22, a record number of children were victims of crime.
The criminal justice system is on its knees, with a backlog of 65,000 cases in the criminal courts. It is therefore no wonder that out of almost 28,000 knife possession offences recorded over the past year, only four in 10 led to any formal sanction. Why are the Government failing so badly to prosecute knife offences? These damning statistics are the result of more than a decade of austerity, cuts to public services and cutting around 20,000 police officers. This year, Baroness Casey’s review of the Met stated that it
“has been disfigured by austerity”
and that the number of police community support officers has been drastically reduced, leading to the collapse in neighbourhood policing.
After initially benefiting from a record of investment in policing under the last Labour Government, violent crime started to rise in London on Boris Johnson’s watch in 2014. He oversaw policies that led to police officer numbers falling to record lows and 9,000 police staff losing their jobs, including 72% of community support officers. Over 70 police stations closed, including Battersea   police station in 2013. Obviously, the cuts have had a huge impact on policing. Emergency calls are not always responded to within the national target times, forcing the local Met to make changes to its emergency response.
While police numbers in London are now increasing, the Casey review highlighted the inexperience of new officers. By making cuts to policing, not only did we lose police officers; crucially, we lost experience. Although we now have a record number of police officers in London, with more than 9,000 officers recruited in the last three years alone, we need more. The Met commissioner, Mark Rowley, believes that 6,000 more officers are needed, yet the Government provided funding for only 4,500. Why will the Government not provide more officers in London?
When it comes to youth services, nearly £1 billion of funding has been cut. In London, spending fell by 59% in real terms compared with the period between 2011 and 2022.

Louie French: Does the hon. Member agree that it is shameful that Sadiq Khan, as Labour Mayor of London and the police and crime commissioner for London, was the only  PCC in the country who failed to use all the available Government funding, which cost London more than 1,000 police officers?

Marsha de Cordova: I would like to thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but obviously I do not. I am proud of what the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has been doing to plug the gaps caused by the Government’s failure and their cuts to police services in London.
With little or no formal youth services provided by local authorities, it has been left to fantastic organisations in Battersea including Elays, FAST, Devas, Providence House, Caius House, Carney’s and many others to deliver for young people. We know that nearly £1 billion has been cut from youth services. It is vital that those services are provided with funding.
Some young people face unprecedented threats from the influence of county lines gangs, damaging social media content and issues caused by the pandemic. According to the think-tank Crest, more than 200,000 children are vulnerable to serious violence. Data also shows that a record number of young people are seeking mental health support from the NHS.
It must be a national mission to tackle serious violence and divert young people away from violence and crime. After 13 years, the Government have offered nothing substantial to address the epidemic of serious violence. Their serious violence strategy was last updated five years ago. What happened to the taskforce? It has been disbanded.
I am proud that Labour has committed to a series of reforms to increase the proportion of violent crimes being charged, to rebuild public confidence in policing and to restore the rule of law. Labour will invest in neighbourhood policing, putting 13,000 more police officers and police community support officers on our streets and introducing a new community policing guarantee to make Britain’s streets safer.
In local government, Labour has demonstrated  the positive impact that can happen through sustained investment and action. The Mayor of London has plugged  the funding hole created by the Tories with investments of £1 billion in policing. That will lead to an additional 1,300 officers on our streets and 500 police community support officers. In 2022, the number of murders in London was the lowest since 2014, and teenage murders reduced by 50%.
I firmly believe that tougher criminal justice measures alone will not solve the problem of serious violence in our communities. We also need to have a laser-like focus on prevention. For too long, the Government have written off young people, who have been pushed around by Government Departments, local authorities, mental health services and the police. There needs to be a holistic and joined-up approach. That model has already been pioneered by—yes—the Mayor of London. His violence reduction unit focuses on prevention and early intervention to help divert vulnerable young people in London away from violence and towards positive activities, opportunities and employment. More than 150,000 young people have been supported since the VRU was set up, which has resulted in a 25% reduction in homicides, a 15% fall in knife crime injuries among the under-25s, and a 26% reduction in robbery. The VRU shows how investment in prevention can lead to positive outcomes.
Alongside investment in youth services, we need to ensure that there is a community-based, localised, tailored support service to address the emotional and psychological needs of those directly and indirectly affected by serious violence. Following incidents in Battersea, Wandsworth Borough Council has commissioned a bereavement service to provide a 12-month pilot project, providing support to those bereaved due to violent crime, as well as incident and trauma counselling to those who have been victims of, or have witnessed, serious violence. It has also set up community-based support groups in areas where critical incidents have taken place.
While we are talking about serious violence, I want to touch briefly on violence against women and girls, following the tragic murder of Sarah Everard in south London and of many other women over the past few years. In Battersea, I have launched a safe spaces initiative, working with the police and local businesses to ensure women and girls can always feel safe on our local streets, wherever they are and whatever the time is.
In closing, I ask the Minister what action the Government are taking to tackle serious violence. If they are really committed to tackling this issue, why have they not updated their serious violence strategy for five years? Do they ever plan to do so? How are the Government plugging the gap in police funding and providing the investment needed in London to deliver more officers to help deliver a safer city for everyone, as the commissioner has called for? Where is the investment in prevention and youth services to stop the criminal exploitation of our children and young people? Will the Minister back Labour’s plan to introduce a new definition and specific offence of criminal child exploitation? Why will the Government not back our plans to put a mental health support worker into every school and youth workers into our accident and emergency hospitals to prevent people from becoming involved in gangs?
What investment are the Government making in community-based, localised, tailored support services to address the emotional and psychological needs of  those directly and indirectly affected by serious violence? Increased investment and resources will be an investment in our young people, but also in their futures. It is time for the Government to act, but if they cannot deliver the change that our country so desperately needs, they really should get out of the way and let Labour get on with fixing the mess they have created. If they do not act now, then when? How many more lives must be destroyed by serious violence before this Government act?

Tom Pursglove: I am, of course, grateful to the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for securing this debate, and for the opportunity to respond to it.
May I first deal with the point that was raised at the outset of the debate? I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies) all the very best as she assumes her responsibilities as the Minister for disabled people within Government. Having worked with her in the Department for Work and Pensions, I believe she will take on those important responsibilities with real vigour and do justice to them. It was an enormous privilege to serve as the Minister for disabled people over the course of the past 14 months. I am enormously grateful to all those I worked with—disabled people, disabled people’s organisations and the various charities—along with the many disabled people I met over the length and breadth of Britain, who made that an unforgettable time in ministerial office. I am proud of the work we did, and I know that my hon. Friend will continue that work over the coming weeks and months. I wish her well.
To return to the substance of today’s debate, the hon. Member for Battersea has spoken powerfully and passionately about the impact of serious violence in her constituency. I realise that this debate has had more of a local dimension, but I think it is worth reflecting on the national picture for a moment. Serious violence causes significant distress and harm whenever it occurs, and the Government are absolutely committed to tackling it. I think that all of us in this House can agree, whatever our political affiliations, that we want our communities to both feel safe and be safe wherever people live, and the senseless loss of life that she has described is a tragedy in every sense of the word. I say that as a former victims Minister who has met families who have lost loved ones in the most horrendous of circumstances. I do not think there is any politician on any side of British politics who is not moved by those stories and does not want to take action to prevent other families from experiencing the unimaginable loss and trauma that they have experienced when love ones are taken in such horrific circumstances.
That is why we have deployed a twin-track approach, combining tough enforcement with intervention to prevent people, especially young people, from being drawn into violent crime, and that work is delivering strong results. The latest crime statistics show that homicides fell by 10% compared with the last year, and were 15% lower than the year ending December 2019. Violence against the person offences fell by 1% compared with the previous year, and by 19% compared with March 2020. More than 120,000 weapons have been removed from Britain’s streets since 2019 through a range of tactics, with almost  half seized through stop and search. Again, I am sure all Members of this House would want to thank the many organisations across the country involved in facilitating the work of getting those dangerous weapons off our streets and helping to keep people safe. Through the work of violence reduction units and the Grip hotspot policing programme, we have prevented 136,000 violence without injury offences, as attested by an independent evaluation of the two programmes. Of course, we have recruited an additional 20,000 officers across England and Wales. We are making progress, but there is more to do. This threat is too serious and, in the worst cases, deadly for us to be anything other than relentless in our approach.

Marsha de Cordova: Does the Minister agree with me and with Baroness Casey who says that this is also about the experience that has been lost? Yes, there is now the recruitment of more officers, but that experience has gone since the Government chose to cut 20,000 officers over the past decade.

Tom Pursglove: I hear the point that the hon. Lady makes. I think that the commitment to deliver the 20,000 additional police officers was the right commitment to make. I well recall debates, which may have been before her time in the House, when I was on the Back Benches and those on the Labour Front Bench were arguing for us to cut funding for policing. I did not support that approach at the time, and I can only imagine where we would have been had we taken that advice. Instead, this Government have gone in the opposite direction, and we have increased policing numbers by 20,000, exactly as we committed, and I believe that it is making a difference on our streets. Of course, drawing on the experience of officers who have served in policing roles for a long period is invaluable to training the next generation of officers, and that is precisely an endeavour on which we are focusing.
We are determined to go further, which is why, earlier this year, we ran a public consultation detailing five proposals to tackle knife crime, and all of them will be taken forward in the most suitable way when parliamentary time allows. We will introduce via secondary legislation a ban on certain types of large knives that seem to appeal to those who want to use these items as weapons—for instance, zombie-style knives or machetes. In the Criminal Justice Bill, we have introduced provisions that will give the police more powers to seize dangerous weapons, created a new offence of possession of a bladed weapon with an intent to harm and increased sentences for those who import, manufacture or sell dangerous weapons to under-18s.
I turn to some of the specific areas touched on in the hon. Lady’s remarks. We have listened to officers on the frontline to understand the problems they face day in and day out, and we have worked in collaboration with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to develop a ban on the machetes and large knives that are becoming more prevalent in serious crime. The ban focuses on features that are commonly found in the types of knives being used in serious violence and serious crime.
Since we launched our consultation on measures to tackle knife crime there has been an interest in extending the ban to include swords, and I understand the reason   why. However, during our conversations with the  police, swords were not raised as a specific concern. The  police tell us that the greatest risk at the moment is  the criminal use of zombie-style knives and machetes, so we agreed to focus on specific features commonly found on the knives and machetes increasingly being used on our streets in incidents of serious violence. We will, however, keep that under review.
We are clear that it is illegal to sell knives to a person aged under 18, and that applies to face-to-face or online sales. The Offensive Weapons Act 2019 stopped knives being sent to residential addresses after they are bought online, unless arrangements are in place to ensure that the items will not be delivered into the hands of someone who is under 18. We want strong deterrence to the sale of prohibited weapons, and of any knives to those under 18. That is why we are increasing the maximum penalty for the offence of selling knives to someone under the age of 18, whether online or face to face, from six months to two years. That change will reflect the severity of the offence itself, and will be brought forward as soon as possible.
One of the most powerful preventive measures we have is getting dangerous weapons off the streets entirely. Every knife seized is a potential life saved. More than 120,000 weapons have been removed from Britain’s streets since 2019, as I mentioned, through a range of tactics, with almost half seized through stop and search. Proactive police work is also vital. Operation Sceptre involves intensive activity over several days, and has been running successfully for a number of years. The latest phase of the operation took place in November. It had a positive impact, with more than 12,000 knives seized, surrendered or recovered. Those bursts of activity are important, and can make a real difference, but we also clear that this needs to be a priority all year round.
The Government will always act in the interests of the law-abiding majority, including by strengthening the law where necessary. We want to have strong deterrents for knife possession, with the maximum sentence for possessing a knife in public being four years’ imprisonment. In recognition of the seriousness of offences related to knives, the law provides for minimum custodial sentences for repeat knife possession and offences that involve threatening with a weapon. The court is able to impose a minimum six-month custodial sentence for adults, or a four-month detention and training order sentence for 16 and 17-year-olds. We continue to strengthen the law in that area to ensure that we are getting offensive weapons off the streets. That is why we are increasing the maximum penalty for sales of prohibited offensive weapons, and also for sales of knives to under-18s. We are also introducing a new offence for the possession of a knife with the intention to cause harm or fear of violence. The new offence will provide police with the power to charge someone who is found to be in possession of a knife or offensive weapon with a more serious offence than possession in public.
There is also a role for technology in this, which can help us to improve our response. We should be open to such possibilities. The Home Office is actively researching and developing technologies that are capable of detecting knives carried on the person that could be concealed, distinguishing them from other benign objects such as door keys. This is still in the developmental phase, but  the Home Office and partners are continuing to engage the market to identify new and promising technologies to reduce knife crime.
The Offensive Weapons Act 2019 introduced knife crime preventions orders, which are court orders designed to prevent people aged 12 and over from carrying knives and becoming involved in serious violence. The aim is to stop a small but high-risk cohort of individuals from causing immediate harm to others, and to support earlier interventions to turn young people away from a life of crime. Knife crime prevention orders were piloted by the Metropolitan Police Service from July 2022 to March 2023, and it is currently evaluating that pilot and its effectiveness. That will then inform any decision on whether to roll out the orders to all police forces in England and Wales.
As I said in my opening remarks, we are supporting the police every step of the way in these endeavours to tackle violent crime. We have given them more powers and resources to go after criminals, and to take knives and other dangerous weapons off our streets. We promised to put more police officers on our streets, and we have delivered on that commitment by recruiting more than 20,000 police officers. As a result of the Government’s police uplift programme, the Metropolitan Police Service now has more than 35,000 officers. That is the highest number on record and higher than the pre-PUP peak of 33,820 in March 2010. I am sure that the House would join me in saying how fantastic it is that so many people are taking up a career in policing, and I say that as the son of two former police officers. Every new recruit has a role to play in our fight to tackle crime and keep the public safe. I place on record how grateful I am for all that they do.
I have mentioned the funding for Grip and violence reduction units, which are the Government’s preventive programmes to tackle serious violence, including knife crime. Violence reduction units identify people, particularly young people, in danger of following the wrong path. They bring together partners from health, probation, policing, housing and beyond in a partnership approach to invest in the best evidence-based interventions to prevent and deter young people from involvement in serious violence, exactly as I saw for myself last summer in Leicester. Violence reduction units are critical, as is the Grip programme, which is a hotspot policing initiative funded by this Government. In essence, it involves a data-driven approach to identify the precise location to street or neighbourhood level most at risk of serious violence so that we can support them with additional visible police patrols and problem-solving activity to stop crime from happening in the first place.
It was welcome that the hon. Lady touched on the work of the London violence reduction unit, which is in receipt of Government funding. We have funded 20 violence reduction units across the country since 2019, investing £160 million, and they are making a considerable difference. Members across the House can welcome that, and I am pleased that the VRU is making a difference on the ground in Battersea, too. We are ensuring that we are targeting crime at root and at source and investing in prevention and early intervention. We are investing £200 million over 10 years in the Youth Endowment Fund, as well as co-funding the delivery and evaluation of high-impact and innovative interventions.

Marsha de Cordova: The Minister has rightly spoken about the VRUs and the brilliant work taking place in London. At the heart of all this are our children and young people. We know, as I alluded to in my speech, that many could be exploited by some of these criminal gangs. As I have asked him—I wonder whether he will come on to it—will he back Labour’s plan that would introduce a specific offence around child exploitation?

Tom Pursglove: Bearing in mind that I am covering this debate for the Policing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), I will, if I may, gladly ask him to pick up on any points that remain outstanding from my remarks. I genuinely believe that the Youth Endowment Fund is helping to transform our understanding of what works to prevent children and people from being involved in violence and from being exploited. It does so by funding grant and evaluation programmes and working with many organisations to ensure that they are investing in programmes that have a real impact.
I will finish by offering my thanks again to the hon. Lady for securing this debate, to colleagues in attendance and to those across Parliament who I know take a real interest in these matters. These are some of the most serious issues that we deal with as constituency MPs. We all want to see the most robust action taken in responding to serious violence wherever we find it. The strength of feeling and desire for sustained effective action is clear. Each and every one of us knows how vital it is for our communities and our constituents. I can assure the House and the public that this Government get it. We know the stakes, and that is why we are taking action across multiple fronts to tackle knife crime and keep people—especially young people—safe.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.